This is the Reading Instruction Show.
I am your host, is always the jolly one, Dr. Andy Johnson.
Topic of today's podcast is consensus among researchers, intensive phonics, and vocabulary
and word building instruction.
This is the fifth in a series of podcasts looking at an article published in the New Yorker
magazine that I did first back in September.
And I was going to do a series of them, but so many silly things kept occurring that I
got a little bit off track.
But I'm back on track.
The name of this article was called the rise and fall of vibes based literacy written by
Jessica Winter.
And I was sent this article.
I think someone wanted to make a point.
They thought they would change my mind by reading this article.
Now in this article, Jessica Winter used her platform with the New Yorker magazine to accuse
teachers in New York City of using vibes based literacy.
Now Jessica Winter is an editor at the New Yorker where she also writes about family
and education.
And apparently being knowledgeable about education is not a prerequisite for writing about education
for the New Yorker magazine.
Their standards are low.
So I'm spending time analyzing Jessica Winter's article in this series of podcasts because
it's so accurately represents the disrepresentation and the ununderstanding of literacy instruction
being portrayed by the science of reading community as well as other media.
Now the New Yorker magazine has a readership of over a million people, a million.
So it's safe to say that a lot of people read Jessica Winter's article.
And I'm guessing most of these people had little background in education or literacy
instruction.
And I'm guessing most of these people thought that just because this article is in a big
time magazine that it must be reasonably close to being true or at the very least that the
writer checked her sources.
Oops!
Hence I feel that my civic duty as a paid employee of the state of Minnesota to point
out the blatant ignorance smeared all over the pages of this article like stale margarine.
So let me recap a bit.
Jessica Winter opened up her article and again it was called the Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based
Literacy Instruction.
She opened up by describing an incident that occurred at her home during COVID as part
of her daughter's kindergarten reading instruction.
Now keep in mind that during COVID all teachers were learning how to adapt what they were
doing in the classroom to online home instruction.
And this stuff doesn't always transfer so well from school to home.
During this time, Jessica's kindergarten daughter was engaged in instruction at home
and Jessica saw something she didn't understand called Reading Workshop.
Oh!
She said to herself that's something I've never seen before.
I don't understand it.
Therefore it has to be bad or wrong.
She said to herself and based on her ununderstanding of literacy development and Reading Workshop,
she perceived what were her daughter's developmentally appropriate behaviors for readers at that
level.
She perceived these behaviors to be deficient.
Using a deficiency lens because she didn't understand what she was seeing, she perceived
her daughter to have reading difficulties because she wasn't doing the things the way
that Jessica thought that she should.
So based on her lack of knowledge, Jessica Winter came to conclusions about things none
of which were remotely accurate.
Then, based on a sample size of one and a very teeny tiny subset of data collected for
a very short duration with no analysis of any kind, Jessica Winter determined that there
was a problem with reading instruction for all of New York City.
Further, she determined that she had isolated the variable and that variable was balanced
literacy.
There's balanced literacy, she said, and there's my daughter displaying what I think
is a deficit behavior.
They appear together, she said.
So obviously one thing is causing the other.
Obviously it's balanced literacy that's causing the deficit behavior, she said.
But Jessica Winter didn't stop there.
She not only figured out the cause of this alleged problem that really wasn't a problem
at all because it was developmentally appropriate behavior for a child at the emergent level.
She figured out the cause but also she came up with the solution.
Yes, she did.
Incredible.
And the solution that Jessica Winter came up with was phonics instruction.
But wait, there's more.
Based on her sample size of one, Jessica Winter believed that the results of her research
could be generalized to all the students in New York City.
She concluded that all the students in New York City needed to abandon balanced literacy.
They need to abandon that, she said, even though Jessica Winter obviously had no idea
what balanced literacy was.
But she went on that didn't stop her saying that they need to give up this balanced literacy
nonsense according to Jessica Winter and instead get a whole bunch of heaping helping
a phonics instruction.
Imagine that.
Now we have a special term for this kind of thing that happens in the literacy research
world.
We have a special term for this and that term when someone does what Jessica Winter did
is called pretty gosh darn stupid.
Excuse my salty language here.
But it's also called anecdotal evidence, I think isms perception and confirmation bias.
Now based on her years, the many years that she spent not reviewing reading research,
Jessica Winter determined that the type of literacy instruction her child was receiving
was not the right kind of literacy instruction and she called it vibes based literacy and
this was not a complimentary term.
Imagine that.
Then Jessica Winter equated reading workshop with balanced literacy.
Jessica, Jessica, Jessica.
These are two different things.
Reading workshop could be an example of balanced literacy, but it could also not be an example.
You could be engaged in balanced literacy instruction and it might not be reading workshop.
You really should know what you're talking about before you write an article and send
it out to a million people and balanced literacy is not a method.
balanced literacy is a description.
There is a balance of literacy instruction and opportunities to use these skills in authentic
reading and writing experiences.
There's a balance based not on a scope and sequence chart, but on students needs and
along the way you also have to address vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, phonics, phonemic
awareness, word identification, word recognition, affect, that's emotion and motivation, social
interaction.
These are all things that are included in a balanced approach to literacy instruction.
There is a balance based on what your students need.
One size does not fit all.
So Jessica Winter and Emily Hanford in the rest of the science of reading clown club,
you should really know what you're talking about before you criticize balanced literacy.
And Jessica, if you don't understand something that doesn't mean it's bad or ineffective.
It just means you don't understand it.
And there's no shame in admitting that Jessica.
Maybe you don't understand quantum physics.
Does that mean you're going to write an article criticizing it?
Are you going to call it vibes based physics?
And finally, Jessica, a basic rule in research of any kind is this.
You can't generalize to a larger population based on a sample size of one.
All right, moving on.
Let's do a little bit of unpacker rating.
Some things that Jessica Winter actually said in your article, Jessica, you said this, these
developments and I'm quoting you these developments and she's referring here to science of reading
requirements.
These developments reflect a long standing consensus among researchers that intensive
phonics and vocabulary building instruction and approach often referred to nowadays as
the science of reading are essential.
So let's stop here and do a bit of unpacker rating.
Long standing consensus among researchers, she says.
And I'm assuming Jessica, since you wrote that statement, that you've done a review
of the research literature.
So how long is long standing?
When did it begin?
And further, you said consensus among researchers.
What researchers?
How many?
Did you have two?
Because you can have a consensus between two researchers.
That would be a consensus among researchers or maybe it was three or four.
That too would be a consensus among researchers.
And what kind of researchers were they?
Were they psychologists?
Were they linguists?
Were they soybean researchers?
Journalists, dairy researchers?
And what do you have to do to be considered a researcher?
Do you need to have a special researcher license?
Can just anybody be a researcher?
Is collecting data the same as doing research?
Is Emily Hanford a researcher?
But here is Jessica, one thing in which there has been a long term consensus among researchers.
And it's this, there is no one size fits all program or method that works best for
all students.
And why is that?
Because no two students are the same and no two classrooms are the same.
Thus, hence, effective literacy instruction looks a bit different in every classroom.
So you see Jessica, in the real world of academia, you can't just say stuff.
Well, you can, but real academic journals won't publish your stuff.
In academia, you have to cite your sources.
You have to support your ideas.
So you said intensive phonics as well, a little bit more impact-creating here.
Intensive phonics instruction.
And let's explore that.
What would it look like?
And Jessica, are you assuming that intensive phonics doesn't currently take place?
How much phonics is intensive?
Starting when?
Ending when?
And are you assuming that every kid needs intensive phonics?
Every kid in New York City and grades K2 needs intensive phonics.
Is that what you're saying?
But what if students are reading at or above grade level?
Do they need intensive phonics?
What if phonics isn't working?
Do they need more of what's not working so they cannot read to an even greater degree?
What if English is not their first language?
Do they need intensive phonics?
And what do you mean by intensive?
What is intensive?
Do you mean every day?
20 minutes, 30, 60 minutes?
I'm going to teach you hard, hard phonics.
Would it be analytic phonics, synthetic phonics, large unit phonics, embedded phonics, phonics
for spelling?
What exactly do you mean, Jessica?
Maybe at the New Yorker magazine you can just throw out words and not worry about what
they mean.
And that's obviously the standard at the New Yorker magazine.
But in the real world, in an academic environment, A, we have to know what the words mean when
we use them and B, we have to attach the correct meaning to the words that we use.
Very minimum standard, Jessica.
Here's the thing.
Everybody believes phonics instruction is essential.
This has never been up for debate.
I don't know of a major scholar or researcher today who doesn't advocate direct and explicit
phonics instruction.
And oh sure, once upon a time you might have been able to find somebody.
Or maybe today you could find a hermit living alone in the wilderness someplace without
internet service who's had no human contact in years who might advocate a position of
no phonics.
But in terms of longstanding consensus about phonics, no consenting is needed.
Not in the last 40 years anyway because everybody believes that direct and explicit phonics instruction
is necessary for reading instruction, for beginning readers.
It's not the what of phonics, rather it's the how and the how much and the for whom
of phonics instruction that's in question here.
All right, the last part of this, you said vocabulary building instruction.
Again, lovely sounding words.
Vocabulary building.
Vocabulary is important.
It's one of the five pillars recommended by the National Reading Panel Report.
Absolutely, who could argue with vocabulary building instruction?
But what is it exactly?
What would this look like, Jessica?
Would teachers be telling students the meanings of words?
Will they be giving them definitions?
Or maybe students would be looking words up in the dictionary and writing the definitions
down.
Like is vocabulary building instruction?
How long would they spend doing this vocabulary building each day?
And are you saying reading instruction should consist mostly of phonics and vocabulary building
instruction?
Is that what you're saying?
That doesn't sound very balanced.
So many questions, so few answers.
And then you said, Jessica, an approach often referred to nowadays as the science of reading.
So you think it's an approach.
Science of reading is an approach, is it?
And it involves intensive phonics instruction and vocabulary building.
Interesting.
And in this approach, is that all you do?
Do you read any books with this approach?
Do you do any writing with this approach?
What about fluency with this approach or comprehension?
Or perhaps you just sit around and fill in worksheets or sound out lists of nonsense
words or pull words out of context and maybe look up words in the dictionary.
Is that what you mean by science of reading?
An interesting approach.
But with all this consensus among researchers, I'm sure, Jessica, that you'd be able to
cite at least one research study that showed this approach was more effective than, say,
a balanced approach.
Now don't just cite someone saying something.
As you've shown, anybody can say something.
Cite an actual research study.
Just one, Jessica.
You can send it to my email, andrew.johnson at mnsu.edu.
Send it to me, please.
So a little bit more unpacker-y-ton.
Jessica Winters says many nutty, goofy, zany, wacky things.
In describing her daughter's reading instruction, she said this, quote, it seems to me that,
rather than learning to decode a word by fics, by matching sounds to letters with close adult
guidance, a reader following this method is conditioned to look away from the word in favor
of the surrounding words or the accompanying illustrations to make a quasi-educated guess,
perhaps all on her own.
That's what Jessica Winters said.
Now let's think about that.
There is one thing here I can agree with.
Perhaps when Jessica said, it seems to me, yes, we can agree on that.
It may have indeed seemed that way to Jessica Winters.
That's because she used what was in her head to interpret reality.
And if the knowledge base in your head related to reading instruction is shallow and disjointed,
you're going to misinterpret a lot of things and project all sorts of bizarre ideas onto
it.
Jessica is displaying what's called Rorschach syndrome.
She sees what to her is a meaningless blob of something and whatever muck is found in
the corners of her subconscious gets projected onto it.
Jessica went on to say a reader following this method is conditioned, conditioned.
Really Jessica, conditioned, conditioning children.
Is that an emotional buzzword?
Oh dear, they're conditioning our children to look away from the word.
What about the children?
Who's going to protect the children?
The children.
Training children to look away from the word.
Have you no shame, Jessica?
Pull your head out of your ass for just a minute.
Really?
What would that look like?
Boys and girls, see this word?
Look away.
Look away, I tell you.
And then every time they did this, the teacher would give them a treat.
Is that what you're saying, Jessica?
Or perhaps when they looked at the word, they'd get a mild electric shock, so they wouldn't
do it anymore.
Is that what you mean by conditioning, Jessica?
Or perhaps they paired looking away from words with something pleasant so that they eventually
associated looking away from words with something pleasant.
These are examples of operant and classical conditioning.
This is what conditioning means, Jessica.
Is that what you meant to mean?
Are they really conditioning children or are you just looking for emotional buzzwords?
So Jessica Winter, Emily Hanford, the reading big bombs for liberty, the science of reading
clown club.
They've all used a lot of adjectives and pejoratives to present a cartoonish version
of balanced literacy, but they've never accurately defined it.
And they're all pushing for this thing called science of reading.
Science, science.
It sounds so good.
Who could argue with science?
We all agree with this absolutely.
But the science of reading propositions put forth by Jessica and Emily and all these people
are based on a very naive and limited understanding of science.
And if you're going to be dogmatic about science, you should really have a bit of understanding
about methods of science used in the social sciences.
You should understand something about the array of research methods used to understand
reading, the reading process, and effective reading instruction.
And perhaps, just perhaps, if you're going to be dogmatic and make these statements and
condemn balanced literacy, maybe you should have actually say read some research related
to reading.
Maybe it's just me, but that seems kind of the thing that one should do.
But they insist that the science of reading instruction, whatever that is, should be the
law of the land.
But in terms of behaviors, what exactly would we see with science of reading instruction?
In terms of current reading instruction, what teaching strategies specifically would we
see more of?
And in terms of current reading instruction, what would we see less of?
What would this look like?
Getting beyond your words.
What are you saying?
Now, currently 32 states have passed laws or enacted policies related to reading instruction.
So now we've got reading laws making it illegal to teach reading in certain ways.
The science of reading is to be the law.
In Minnesota, it's called the read act.
It's a law stating that reading instruction has to be a certain way, whether there's consensus
among researchers or not.
It's the same way in Wisconsin.
Teachers teaching reading must use the science of reading, whatever that is.
They think that this will fix all the reading problems.
They think that soon all children will be reading above average.
Okay, you've passed these laws, Minnesota, Wisconsin, these other states.
Now you've got your chance.
No excuses.
I'll see you in five years when this grand experiment and I think isms will have been
shown to be an expensive boom doggle.
Who are you going to blame then?
Now science of reading clowns that I use that in the most respectful way possible, you can't
win the argument in an academic context.
And if you can't win the argument in an academic context, what do you do?
You take it outside an academic context.
Good problem solving, right?
To get your for-profit publishers to lobby, to get laws passed that would force schools
to buy the products of these for-profit publishers, then you bully and threaten anyone who would
disagree.
That's what you've done in Wisconsin.
That's what they're doing in Minnesota and around the country.
It's called the readout.
And again, if you can't win the argument in an academic setting and the science of reading
community, you can't, then you bully and threaten schools, teacher preparation programs, and
literacy professors.
This has been the Reading Instruction Show.
I am your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.