1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:02,760
This is the Reading Instruction Show.

2
00:00:02,760 --> 00:00:08,920
I am your host, is always the jolly one, Dr. Andy Johnson.

3
00:00:08,920 --> 00:00:18,080
Topic of today's podcast is consensus among researchers, intensive phonics, and vocabulary

4
00:00:18,080 --> 00:00:21,160
and word building instruction.

5
00:00:21,160 --> 00:00:28,080
This is the fifth in a series of podcasts looking at an article published in the New Yorker

6
00:00:28,080 --> 00:00:32,320
magazine that I did first back in September.

7
00:00:32,320 --> 00:00:36,560
And I was going to do a series of them, but so many silly things kept occurring that I

8
00:00:36,560 --> 00:00:39,200
got a little bit off track.

9
00:00:39,200 --> 00:00:41,160
But I'm back on track.

10
00:00:41,160 --> 00:00:47,240
The name of this article was called the rise and fall of vibes based literacy written by

11
00:00:47,240 --> 00:00:49,000
Jessica Winter.

12
00:00:49,000 --> 00:00:50,840
And I was sent this article.

13
00:00:50,840 --> 00:00:52,840
I think someone wanted to make a point.

14
00:00:52,840 --> 00:00:57,840
They thought they would change my mind by reading this article.

15
00:00:57,840 --> 00:01:04,760
Now in this article, Jessica Winter used her platform with the New Yorker magazine to accuse

16
00:01:04,760 --> 00:01:11,600
teachers in New York City of using vibes based literacy.

17
00:01:11,600 --> 00:01:18,160
Now Jessica Winter is an editor at the New Yorker where she also writes about family

18
00:01:18,160 --> 00:01:20,520
and education.

19
00:01:20,520 --> 00:01:29,040
And apparently being knowledgeable about education is not a prerequisite for writing about education

20
00:01:29,040 --> 00:01:31,040
for the New Yorker magazine.

21
00:01:31,040 --> 00:01:34,160
Their standards are low.

22
00:01:34,160 --> 00:01:41,480
So I'm spending time analyzing Jessica Winter's article in this series of podcasts because

23
00:01:41,480 --> 00:01:49,440
it's so accurately represents the disrepresentation and the ununderstanding of literacy instruction

24
00:01:49,440 --> 00:01:57,160
being portrayed by the science of reading community as well as other media.

25
00:01:57,160 --> 00:02:04,480
Now the New Yorker magazine has a readership of over a million people, a million.

26
00:02:04,480 --> 00:02:10,640
So it's safe to say that a lot of people read Jessica Winter's article.

27
00:02:10,640 --> 00:02:16,080
And I'm guessing most of these people had little background in education or literacy

28
00:02:16,080 --> 00:02:18,480
instruction.

29
00:02:18,480 --> 00:02:23,280
And I'm guessing most of these people thought that just because this article is in a big

30
00:02:23,280 --> 00:02:33,520
time magazine that it must be reasonably close to being true or at the very least that the

31
00:02:33,520 --> 00:02:36,880
writer checked her sources.

32
00:02:36,880 --> 00:02:39,240
Oops!

33
00:02:39,240 --> 00:02:46,600
Hence I feel that my civic duty as a paid employee of the state of Minnesota to point

34
00:02:46,600 --> 00:02:54,160
out the blatant ignorance smeared all over the pages of this article like stale margarine.

35
00:02:54,160 --> 00:02:57,760
So let me recap a bit.

36
00:02:57,760 --> 00:03:04,200
Jessica Winter opened up her article and again it was called the Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based

37
00:03:04,200 --> 00:03:07,240
Literacy Instruction.

38
00:03:07,240 --> 00:03:13,520
She opened up by describing an incident that occurred at her home during COVID as part

39
00:03:13,520 --> 00:03:17,600
of her daughter's kindergarten reading instruction.

40
00:03:17,600 --> 00:03:24,400
Now keep in mind that during COVID all teachers were learning how to adapt what they were

41
00:03:24,400 --> 00:03:30,000
doing in the classroom to online home instruction.

42
00:03:30,000 --> 00:03:35,920
And this stuff doesn't always transfer so well from school to home.

43
00:03:35,920 --> 00:03:41,720
During this time, Jessica's kindergarten daughter was engaged in instruction at home

44
00:03:41,720 --> 00:03:48,800
and Jessica saw something she didn't understand called Reading Workshop.

45
00:03:48,800 --> 00:03:50,040
Oh!

46
00:03:50,040 --> 00:03:54,440
She said to herself that's something I've never seen before.

47
00:03:54,440 --> 00:03:56,800
I don't understand it.

48
00:03:56,800 --> 00:03:59,800
Therefore it has to be bad or wrong.

49
00:03:59,800 --> 00:04:08,680
She said to herself and based on her ununderstanding of literacy development and Reading Workshop,

50
00:04:08,680 --> 00:04:15,840
she perceived what were her daughter's developmentally appropriate behaviors for readers at that

51
00:04:15,840 --> 00:04:16,840
level.

52
00:04:16,840 --> 00:04:21,920
She perceived these behaviors to be deficient.

53
00:04:21,920 --> 00:04:28,560
Using a deficiency lens because she didn't understand what she was seeing, she perceived

54
00:04:28,560 --> 00:04:34,760
her daughter to have reading difficulties because she wasn't doing the things the way

55
00:04:34,760 --> 00:04:39,120
that Jessica thought that she should.

56
00:04:39,120 --> 00:04:45,960
So based on her lack of knowledge, Jessica Winter came to conclusions about things none

57
00:04:45,960 --> 00:04:49,320
of which were remotely accurate.

58
00:04:49,320 --> 00:04:57,160
Then, based on a sample size of one and a very teeny tiny subset of data collected for

59
00:04:57,160 --> 00:05:04,760
a very short duration with no analysis of any kind, Jessica Winter determined that there

60
00:05:04,760 --> 00:05:10,200
was a problem with reading instruction for all of New York City.

61
00:05:10,200 --> 00:05:17,880
Further, she determined that she had isolated the variable and that variable was balanced

62
00:05:17,880 --> 00:05:18,880
literacy.

63
00:05:18,880 --> 00:05:27,280
There's balanced literacy, she said, and there's my daughter displaying what I think

64
00:05:27,280 --> 00:05:29,840
is a deficit behavior.

65
00:05:29,840 --> 00:05:32,520
They appear together, she said.

66
00:05:32,520 --> 00:05:36,680
So obviously one thing is causing the other.

67
00:05:36,680 --> 00:05:44,280
Obviously it's balanced literacy that's causing the deficit behavior, she said.

68
00:05:44,280 --> 00:05:48,560
But Jessica Winter didn't stop there.

69
00:05:48,560 --> 00:05:55,040
She not only figured out the cause of this alleged problem that really wasn't a problem

70
00:05:55,040 --> 00:06:03,800
at all because it was developmentally appropriate behavior for a child at the emergent level.

71
00:06:03,800 --> 00:06:08,960
She figured out the cause but also she came up with the solution.

72
00:06:08,960 --> 00:06:11,240
Yes, she did.

73
00:06:11,240 --> 00:06:13,360
Incredible.

74
00:06:13,360 --> 00:06:19,600
And the solution that Jessica Winter came up with was phonics instruction.

75
00:06:19,600 --> 00:06:23,160
But wait, there's more.

76
00:06:23,160 --> 00:06:30,960
Based on her sample size of one, Jessica Winter believed that the results of her research

77
00:06:30,960 --> 00:06:36,680
could be generalized to all the students in New York City.

78
00:06:36,680 --> 00:06:44,040
She concluded that all the students in New York City needed to abandon balanced literacy.

79
00:06:44,040 --> 00:06:49,880
They need to abandon that, she said, even though Jessica Winter obviously had no idea

80
00:06:49,880 --> 00:06:53,320
what balanced literacy was.

81
00:06:53,320 --> 00:07:00,220
But she went on that didn't stop her saying that they need to give up this balanced literacy

82
00:07:00,220 --> 00:07:06,520
nonsense according to Jessica Winter and instead get a whole bunch of heaping helping

83
00:07:06,520 --> 00:07:09,720
a phonics instruction.

84
00:07:09,720 --> 00:07:11,520
Imagine that.

85
00:07:11,520 --> 00:07:19,480
Now we have a special term for this kind of thing that happens in the literacy research

86
00:07:19,480 --> 00:07:20,480
world.

87
00:07:20,480 --> 00:07:26,960
We have a special term for this and that term when someone does what Jessica Winter did

88
00:07:26,960 --> 00:07:30,680
is called pretty gosh darn stupid.

89
00:07:30,680 --> 00:07:33,760
Excuse my salty language here.

90
00:07:33,760 --> 00:07:43,600
But it's also called anecdotal evidence, I think isms perception and confirmation bias.

91
00:07:43,600 --> 00:07:51,680
Now based on her years, the many years that she spent not reviewing reading research,

92
00:07:51,680 --> 00:07:58,280
Jessica Winter determined that the type of literacy instruction her child was receiving

93
00:07:58,280 --> 00:08:06,000
was not the right kind of literacy instruction and she called it vibes based literacy and

94
00:08:06,000 --> 00:08:09,760
this was not a complimentary term.

95
00:08:09,760 --> 00:08:12,000
Imagine that.

96
00:08:12,000 --> 00:08:17,640
Then Jessica Winter equated reading workshop with balanced literacy.

97
00:08:17,640 --> 00:08:21,800
Jessica, Jessica, Jessica.

98
00:08:21,800 --> 00:08:25,280
These are two different things.

99
00:08:25,280 --> 00:08:32,480
Reading workshop could be an example of balanced literacy, but it could also not be an example.

100
00:08:32,480 --> 00:08:39,040
You could be engaged in balanced literacy instruction and it might not be reading workshop.

101
00:08:39,040 --> 00:08:44,080
You really should know what you're talking about before you write an article and send

102
00:08:44,080 --> 00:08:52,160
it out to a million people and balanced literacy is not a method.

103
00:08:52,160 --> 00:08:55,520
balanced literacy is a description.

104
00:08:55,520 --> 00:09:02,880
There is a balance of literacy instruction and opportunities to use these skills in authentic

105
00:09:02,880 --> 00:09:06,440
reading and writing experiences.

106
00:09:06,440 --> 00:09:15,120
There's a balance based not on a scope and sequence chart, but on students needs and

107
00:09:15,120 --> 00:09:24,200
along the way you also have to address vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, phonics, phonemic

108
00:09:24,200 --> 00:09:32,160
awareness, word identification, word recognition, affect, that's emotion and motivation, social

109
00:09:32,160 --> 00:09:34,000
interaction.

110
00:09:34,000 --> 00:09:40,560
These are all things that are included in a balanced approach to literacy instruction.

111
00:09:40,560 --> 00:09:44,880
There is a balance based on what your students need.

112
00:09:44,880 --> 00:09:48,440
One size does not fit all.

113
00:09:48,440 --> 00:09:54,600
So Jessica Winter and Emily Hanford in the rest of the science of reading clown club,

114
00:09:54,600 --> 00:10:02,320
you should really know what you're talking about before you criticize balanced literacy.

115
00:10:02,320 --> 00:10:10,360
And Jessica, if you don't understand something that doesn't mean it's bad or ineffective.

116
00:10:10,360 --> 00:10:13,840
It just means you don't understand it.

117
00:10:13,840 --> 00:10:18,280
And there's no shame in admitting that Jessica.

118
00:10:18,280 --> 00:10:21,960
Maybe you don't understand quantum physics.

119
00:10:21,960 --> 00:10:25,080
Does that mean you're going to write an article criticizing it?

120
00:10:25,080 --> 00:10:29,400
Are you going to call it vibes based physics?

121
00:10:29,400 --> 00:10:35,320
And finally, Jessica, a basic rule in research of any kind is this.

122
00:10:35,320 --> 00:10:43,320
You can't generalize to a larger population based on a sample size of one.

123
00:10:43,320 --> 00:10:47,120
All right, moving on.

124
00:10:47,120 --> 00:10:50,000
Let's do a little bit of unpacker rating.

125
00:10:50,000 --> 00:10:56,640
Some things that Jessica Winter actually said in your article, Jessica, you said this, these

126
00:10:56,640 --> 00:11:02,840
developments and I'm quoting you these developments and she's referring here to science of reading

127
00:11:02,840 --> 00:11:04,360
requirements.

128
00:11:04,360 --> 00:11:11,120
These developments reflect a long standing consensus among researchers that intensive

129
00:11:11,120 --> 00:11:17,920
phonics and vocabulary building instruction and approach often referred to nowadays as

130
00:11:17,920 --> 00:11:23,160
the science of reading are essential.

131
00:11:23,160 --> 00:11:28,040
So let's stop here and do a bit of unpacker rating.

132
00:11:28,040 --> 00:11:33,480
Long standing consensus among researchers, she says.

133
00:11:33,480 --> 00:11:39,160
And I'm assuming Jessica, since you wrote that statement, that you've done a review

134
00:11:39,160 --> 00:11:41,760
of the research literature.

135
00:11:41,760 --> 00:11:44,960
So how long is long standing?

136
00:11:44,960 --> 00:11:47,560
When did it begin?

137
00:11:47,560 --> 00:11:51,840
And further, you said consensus among researchers.

138
00:11:51,840 --> 00:11:54,360
What researchers?

139
00:11:54,360 --> 00:11:55,360
How many?

140
00:11:55,360 --> 00:11:57,920
Did you have two?

141
00:11:57,920 --> 00:12:01,720
Because you can have a consensus between two researchers.

142
00:12:01,720 --> 00:12:06,800
That would be a consensus among researchers or maybe it was three or four.

143
00:12:06,800 --> 00:12:09,960
That too would be a consensus among researchers.

144
00:12:09,960 --> 00:12:12,720
And what kind of researchers were they?

145
00:12:12,720 --> 00:12:14,560
Were they psychologists?

146
00:12:14,560 --> 00:12:16,000
Were they linguists?

147
00:12:16,000 --> 00:12:18,360
Were they soybean researchers?

148
00:12:18,360 --> 00:12:21,000
Journalists, dairy researchers?

149
00:12:21,000 --> 00:12:26,600
And what do you have to do to be considered a researcher?

150
00:12:26,600 --> 00:12:29,960
Do you need to have a special researcher license?

151
00:12:29,960 --> 00:12:32,640
Can just anybody be a researcher?

152
00:12:32,640 --> 00:12:36,920
Is collecting data the same as doing research?

153
00:12:36,920 --> 00:12:40,680
Is Emily Hanford a researcher?

154
00:12:40,680 --> 00:12:48,920
But here is Jessica, one thing in which there has been a long term consensus among researchers.

155
00:12:48,920 --> 00:12:55,400
And it's this, there is no one size fits all program or method that works best for

156
00:12:55,400 --> 00:12:56,640
all students.

157
00:12:56,640 --> 00:12:59,000
And why is that?

158
00:12:59,000 --> 00:13:06,080
Because no two students are the same and no two classrooms are the same.

159
00:13:06,080 --> 00:13:14,880
Thus, hence, effective literacy instruction looks a bit different in every classroom.

160
00:13:14,880 --> 00:13:22,480
So you see Jessica, in the real world of academia, you can't just say stuff.

161
00:13:22,480 --> 00:13:28,640
Well, you can, but real academic journals won't publish your stuff.

162
00:13:28,640 --> 00:13:32,200
In academia, you have to cite your sources.

163
00:13:32,200 --> 00:13:35,920
You have to support your ideas.

164
00:13:35,920 --> 00:13:41,560
So you said intensive phonics as well, a little bit more impact-creating here.

165
00:13:41,560 --> 00:13:44,840
Intensive phonics instruction.

166
00:13:44,840 --> 00:13:48,280
And let's explore that.

167
00:13:48,280 --> 00:13:51,000
What would it look like?

168
00:13:51,000 --> 00:13:58,000
And Jessica, are you assuming that intensive phonics doesn't currently take place?

169
00:13:58,000 --> 00:14:00,640
How much phonics is intensive?

170
00:14:00,640 --> 00:14:01,640
Starting when?

171
00:14:01,640 --> 00:14:03,000
Ending when?

172
00:14:03,000 --> 00:14:09,240
And are you assuming that every kid needs intensive phonics?

173
00:14:09,240 --> 00:14:13,680
Every kid in New York City and grades K2 needs intensive phonics.

174
00:14:13,680 --> 00:14:16,600
Is that what you're saying?

175
00:14:16,600 --> 00:14:20,020
But what if students are reading at or above grade level?

176
00:14:20,020 --> 00:14:23,200
Do they need intensive phonics?

177
00:14:23,200 --> 00:14:25,560
What if phonics isn't working?

178
00:14:25,560 --> 00:14:31,160
Do they need more of what's not working so they cannot read to an even greater degree?

179
00:14:31,160 --> 00:14:33,440
What if English is not their first language?

180
00:14:33,440 --> 00:14:36,200
Do they need intensive phonics?

181
00:14:36,200 --> 00:14:38,960
And what do you mean by intensive?

182
00:14:38,960 --> 00:14:39,960
What is intensive?

183
00:14:39,960 --> 00:14:42,240
Do you mean every day?

184
00:14:42,240 --> 00:14:45,640
20 minutes, 30, 60 minutes?

185
00:14:45,640 --> 00:14:49,800
I'm going to teach you hard, hard phonics.

186
00:14:49,800 --> 00:14:56,360
Would it be analytic phonics, synthetic phonics, large unit phonics, embedded phonics, phonics

187
00:14:56,360 --> 00:14:57,680
for spelling?

188
00:14:57,680 --> 00:15:02,240
What exactly do you mean, Jessica?

189
00:15:02,240 --> 00:15:07,440
Maybe at the New Yorker magazine you can just throw out words and not worry about what

190
00:15:07,440 --> 00:15:08,440
they mean.

191
00:15:08,440 --> 00:15:13,840
And that's obviously the standard at the New Yorker magazine.

192
00:15:13,840 --> 00:15:22,120
But in the real world, in an academic environment, A, we have to know what the words mean when

193
00:15:22,120 --> 00:15:30,760
we use them and B, we have to attach the correct meaning to the words that we use.

194
00:15:30,760 --> 00:15:34,160
Very minimum standard, Jessica.

195
00:15:34,160 --> 00:15:35,960
Here's the thing.

196
00:15:35,960 --> 00:15:41,880
Everybody believes phonics instruction is essential.

197
00:15:41,880 --> 00:15:45,760
This has never been up for debate.

198
00:15:45,760 --> 00:15:53,720
I don't know of a major scholar or researcher today who doesn't advocate direct and explicit

199
00:15:53,720 --> 00:15:56,840
phonics instruction.

200
00:15:56,840 --> 00:16:02,200
And oh sure, once upon a time you might have been able to find somebody.

201
00:16:02,200 --> 00:16:07,240
Or maybe today you could find a hermit living alone in the wilderness someplace without

202
00:16:07,240 --> 00:16:13,520
internet service who's had no human contact in years who might advocate a position of

203
00:16:13,520 --> 00:16:15,880
no phonics.

204
00:16:15,880 --> 00:16:24,200
But in terms of longstanding consensus about phonics, no consenting is needed.

205
00:16:24,200 --> 00:16:33,320
Not in the last 40 years anyway because everybody believes that direct and explicit phonics instruction

206
00:16:33,320 --> 00:16:38,760
is necessary for reading instruction, for beginning readers.

207
00:16:38,760 --> 00:16:45,720
It's not the what of phonics, rather it's the how and the how much and the for whom

208
00:16:45,720 --> 00:16:49,120
of phonics instruction that's in question here.

209
00:16:49,120 --> 00:16:55,640
All right, the last part of this, you said vocabulary building instruction.

210
00:16:55,640 --> 00:17:00,040
Again, lovely sounding words.

211
00:17:00,040 --> 00:17:01,880
Vocabulary building.

212
00:17:01,880 --> 00:17:03,200
Vocabulary is important.

213
00:17:03,200 --> 00:17:08,080
It's one of the five pillars recommended by the National Reading Panel Report.

214
00:17:08,080 --> 00:17:13,720
Absolutely, who could argue with vocabulary building instruction?

215
00:17:13,720 --> 00:17:17,040
But what is it exactly?

216
00:17:17,040 --> 00:17:20,000
What would this look like, Jessica?

217
00:17:20,000 --> 00:17:23,280
Would teachers be telling students the meanings of words?

218
00:17:23,280 --> 00:17:25,960
Will they be giving them definitions?

219
00:17:25,960 --> 00:17:31,040
Or maybe students would be looking words up in the dictionary and writing the definitions

220
00:17:31,040 --> 00:17:32,840
down.

221
00:17:32,840 --> 00:17:35,880
Like is vocabulary building instruction?

222
00:17:35,880 --> 00:17:42,440
How long would they spend doing this vocabulary building each day?

223
00:17:42,440 --> 00:17:48,240
And are you saying reading instruction should consist mostly of phonics and vocabulary building

224
00:17:48,240 --> 00:17:49,240
instruction?

225
00:17:49,240 --> 00:17:50,840
Is that what you're saying?

226
00:17:50,840 --> 00:17:53,920
That doesn't sound very balanced.

227
00:17:53,920 --> 00:17:58,720
So many questions, so few answers.

228
00:17:58,720 --> 00:18:07,520
And then you said, Jessica, an approach often referred to nowadays as the science of reading.

229
00:18:07,520 --> 00:18:09,920
So you think it's an approach.

230
00:18:09,920 --> 00:18:12,640
Science of reading is an approach, is it?

231
00:18:12,640 --> 00:18:18,080
And it involves intensive phonics instruction and vocabulary building.

232
00:18:18,080 --> 00:18:19,080
Interesting.

233
00:18:19,080 --> 00:18:23,760
And in this approach, is that all you do?

234
00:18:23,760 --> 00:18:25,960
Do you read any books with this approach?

235
00:18:25,960 --> 00:18:28,080
Do you do any writing with this approach?

236
00:18:28,080 --> 00:18:32,840
What about fluency with this approach or comprehension?

237
00:18:32,840 --> 00:18:39,080
Or perhaps you just sit around and fill in worksheets or sound out lists of nonsense

238
00:18:39,080 --> 00:18:43,720
words or pull words out of context and maybe look up words in the dictionary.

239
00:18:43,720 --> 00:18:47,560
Is that what you mean by science of reading?

240
00:18:47,560 --> 00:18:50,280
An interesting approach.

241
00:18:50,280 --> 00:18:56,920
But with all this consensus among researchers, I'm sure, Jessica, that you'd be able to

242
00:18:56,920 --> 00:19:04,720
cite at least one research study that showed this approach was more effective than, say,

243
00:19:04,720 --> 00:19:07,040
a balanced approach.

244
00:19:07,040 --> 00:19:10,880
Now don't just cite someone saying something.

245
00:19:10,880 --> 00:19:14,120
As you've shown, anybody can say something.

246
00:19:14,120 --> 00:19:16,800
Cite an actual research study.

247
00:19:16,800 --> 00:19:18,560
Just one, Jessica.

248
00:19:18,560 --> 00:19:25,360
You can send it to my email, andrew.johnson at mnsu.edu.

249
00:19:25,360 --> 00:19:27,760
Send it to me, please.

250
00:19:27,760 --> 00:19:31,280
So a little bit more unpacker-y-ton.

251
00:19:31,280 --> 00:19:36,080
Jessica Winters says many nutty, goofy, zany, wacky things.

252
00:19:36,080 --> 00:19:44,280
In describing her daughter's reading instruction, she said this, quote, it seems to me that,

253
00:19:44,280 --> 00:19:50,520
rather than learning to decode a word by fics, by matching sounds to letters with close adult

254
00:19:50,520 --> 00:19:59,640
guidance, a reader following this method is conditioned to look away from the word in favor

255
00:19:59,640 --> 00:20:06,880
of the surrounding words or the accompanying illustrations to make a quasi-educated guess,

256
00:20:06,880 --> 00:20:09,560
perhaps all on her own.

257
00:20:09,560 --> 00:20:11,760
That's what Jessica Winters said.

258
00:20:11,760 --> 00:20:15,920
Now let's think about that.

259
00:20:15,920 --> 00:20:20,000
There is one thing here I can agree with.

260
00:20:20,000 --> 00:20:26,400
Perhaps when Jessica said, it seems to me, yes, we can agree on that.

261
00:20:26,400 --> 00:20:31,400
It may have indeed seemed that way to Jessica Winters.

262
00:20:31,400 --> 00:20:38,720
That's because she used what was in her head to interpret reality.

263
00:20:38,720 --> 00:20:45,320
And if the knowledge base in your head related to reading instruction is shallow and disjointed,

264
00:20:45,320 --> 00:20:52,440
you're going to misinterpret a lot of things and project all sorts of bizarre ideas onto

265
00:20:52,440 --> 00:20:54,120
it.

266
00:20:54,120 --> 00:20:59,480
Jessica is displaying what's called Rorschach syndrome.

267
00:20:59,480 --> 00:21:05,680
She sees what to her is a meaningless blob of something and whatever muck is found in

268
00:21:05,680 --> 00:21:11,960
the corners of her subconscious gets projected onto it.

269
00:21:11,960 --> 00:21:20,040
Jessica went on to say a reader following this method is conditioned, conditioned.

270
00:21:20,040 --> 00:21:25,040
Really Jessica, conditioned, conditioning children.

271
00:21:25,040 --> 00:21:27,200
Is that an emotional buzzword?

272
00:21:27,200 --> 00:21:33,300
Oh dear, they're conditioning our children to look away from the word.

273
00:21:33,300 --> 00:21:35,080
What about the children?

274
00:21:35,080 --> 00:21:37,560
Who's going to protect the children?

275
00:21:37,560 --> 00:21:40,720
The children.

276
00:21:40,720 --> 00:21:44,880
Training children to look away from the word.

277
00:21:44,880 --> 00:21:46,880
Have you no shame, Jessica?

278
00:21:46,880 --> 00:21:50,920
Pull your head out of your ass for just a minute.

279
00:21:50,920 --> 00:21:52,160
Really?

280
00:21:52,160 --> 00:21:54,360
What would that look like?

281
00:21:54,360 --> 00:21:56,720
Boys and girls, see this word?

282
00:21:56,720 --> 00:21:57,720
Look away.

283
00:21:57,720 --> 00:21:59,240
Look away, I tell you.

284
00:21:59,240 --> 00:22:03,360
And then every time they did this, the teacher would give them a treat.

285
00:22:03,360 --> 00:22:06,080
Is that what you're saying, Jessica?

286
00:22:06,080 --> 00:22:11,080
Or perhaps when they looked at the word, they'd get a mild electric shock, so they wouldn't

287
00:22:11,080 --> 00:22:12,280
do it anymore.

288
00:22:12,280 --> 00:22:16,160
Is that what you mean by conditioning, Jessica?

289
00:22:16,160 --> 00:22:21,840
Or perhaps they paired looking away from words with something pleasant so that they eventually

290
00:22:21,840 --> 00:22:28,960
associated looking away from words with something pleasant.

291
00:22:28,960 --> 00:22:33,720
These are examples of operant and classical conditioning.

292
00:22:33,720 --> 00:22:37,400
This is what conditioning means, Jessica.

293
00:22:37,400 --> 00:22:40,560
Is that what you meant to mean?

294
00:22:40,560 --> 00:22:47,880
Are they really conditioning children or are you just looking for emotional buzzwords?

295
00:22:47,880 --> 00:22:54,680
So Jessica Winter, Emily Hanford, the reading big bombs for liberty, the science of reading

296
00:22:54,680 --> 00:22:57,120
clown club.

297
00:22:57,120 --> 00:23:03,080
They've all used a lot of adjectives and pejoratives to present a cartoonish version

298
00:23:03,080 --> 00:23:09,440
of balanced literacy, but they've never accurately defined it.

299
00:23:09,440 --> 00:23:14,640
And they're all pushing for this thing called science of reading.

300
00:23:14,640 --> 00:23:16,160
Science, science.

301
00:23:16,160 --> 00:23:17,600
It sounds so good.

302
00:23:17,600 --> 00:23:20,560
Who could argue with science?

303
00:23:20,560 --> 00:23:23,560
We all agree with this absolutely.

304
00:23:23,560 --> 00:23:30,560
But the science of reading propositions put forth by Jessica and Emily and all these people

305
00:23:30,560 --> 00:23:38,040
are based on a very naive and limited understanding of science.

306
00:23:38,040 --> 00:23:44,680
And if you're going to be dogmatic about science, you should really have a bit of understanding

307
00:23:44,680 --> 00:23:49,840
about methods of science used in the social sciences.

308
00:23:49,840 --> 00:23:56,680
You should understand something about the array of research methods used to understand

309
00:23:56,680 --> 00:24:02,800
reading, the reading process, and effective reading instruction.

310
00:24:02,800 --> 00:24:08,640
And perhaps, just perhaps, if you're going to be dogmatic and make these statements and

311
00:24:08,640 --> 00:24:16,880
condemn balanced literacy, maybe you should have actually say read some research related

312
00:24:16,880 --> 00:24:17,880
to reading.

313
00:24:17,880 --> 00:24:24,280
Maybe it's just me, but that seems kind of the thing that one should do.

314
00:24:24,280 --> 00:24:29,440
But they insist that the science of reading instruction, whatever that is, should be the

315
00:24:29,440 --> 00:24:31,680
law of the land.

316
00:24:31,680 --> 00:24:39,080
But in terms of behaviors, what exactly would we see with science of reading instruction?

317
00:24:39,080 --> 00:24:46,000
In terms of current reading instruction, what teaching strategies specifically would we

318
00:24:46,000 --> 00:24:47,800
see more of?

319
00:24:47,800 --> 00:24:53,200
And in terms of current reading instruction, what would we see less of?

320
00:24:53,200 --> 00:24:55,440
What would this look like?

321
00:24:55,440 --> 00:24:57,840
Getting beyond your words.

322
00:24:57,840 --> 00:24:59,720
What are you saying?

323
00:24:59,720 --> 00:25:09,840
Now, currently 32 states have passed laws or enacted policies related to reading instruction.

324
00:25:09,840 --> 00:25:16,160
So now we've got reading laws making it illegal to teach reading in certain ways.

325
00:25:16,160 --> 00:25:19,200
The science of reading is to be the law.

326
00:25:19,200 --> 00:25:22,640
In Minnesota, it's called the read act.

327
00:25:22,640 --> 00:25:29,160
It's a law stating that reading instruction has to be a certain way, whether there's consensus

328
00:25:29,160 --> 00:25:32,160
among researchers or not.

329
00:25:32,160 --> 00:25:34,840
It's the same way in Wisconsin.

330
00:25:34,840 --> 00:25:41,000
Teachers teaching reading must use the science of reading, whatever that is.

331
00:25:41,000 --> 00:25:45,160
They think that this will fix all the reading problems.

332
00:25:45,160 --> 00:25:50,320
They think that soon all children will be reading above average.

333
00:25:50,320 --> 00:25:58,160
Okay, you've passed these laws, Minnesota, Wisconsin, these other states.

334
00:25:58,160 --> 00:26:00,600
Now you've got your chance.

335
00:26:00,600 --> 00:26:01,600
No excuses.

336
00:26:01,600 --> 00:26:08,640
I'll see you in five years when this grand experiment and I think isms will have been

337
00:26:08,640 --> 00:26:11,720
shown to be an expensive boom doggle.

338
00:26:11,720 --> 00:26:15,280
Who are you going to blame then?

339
00:26:15,280 --> 00:26:21,240
Now science of reading clowns that I use that in the most respectful way possible, you can't

340
00:26:21,240 --> 00:26:26,000
win the argument in an academic context.

341
00:26:26,000 --> 00:26:32,520
And if you can't win the argument in an academic context, what do you do?

342
00:26:32,520 --> 00:26:35,540
You take it outside an academic context.

343
00:26:35,540 --> 00:26:38,120
Good problem solving, right?

344
00:26:38,120 --> 00:26:45,320
To get your for-profit publishers to lobby, to get laws passed that would force schools

345
00:26:45,320 --> 00:26:53,560
to buy the products of these for-profit publishers, then you bully and threaten anyone who would

346
00:26:53,560 --> 00:26:55,720
disagree.

347
00:26:55,720 --> 00:26:58,080
That's what you've done in Wisconsin.

348
00:26:58,080 --> 00:27:00,720
That's what they're doing in Minnesota and around the country.

349
00:27:00,720 --> 00:27:02,800
It's called the readout.

350
00:27:02,800 --> 00:27:08,400
And again, if you can't win the argument in an academic setting and the science of reading

351
00:27:08,400 --> 00:27:16,120
community, you can't, then you bully and threaten schools, teacher preparation programs, and

352
00:27:16,120 --> 00:27:19,360
literacy professors.

353
00:27:19,360 --> 00:27:21,200
This has been the Reading Instruction Show.

354
00:27:21,200 --> 00:27:33,480
I am your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.