This is the reading instruction show. I'm your genial host, Dr. Andy Johnson.
Topic of today's podcast is this. There are no reading messiahs. Now, this is the sixth in a
series of podcasts looking at an article published in the New Yorker magazine by Jessica Winter.
And I'm continuing my analysis here because so much of what was in this article was a whole lot
of incorrect. And the incorrectness was of such a degree that I needed to correct it.
As well, the incorrectness displayed by Jessica Winter in this article is reflected in the
incorrectness displayed by Emily Hanford, the Reading League, the National Dyslexia Association,
and Sarah Schwartz of Education Week. Now, a little aside, Education Week, it calls itself
the number one source of nonpartisan, high quality news and insights covering the K-12
educational education sector. That's what they say about themselves. Now, analysis of Education Week
have been done elsewhere and I don't want to stray down this path, but suffice to say,
Education Week is definitely not objective and it is not nonpartisan and it is not high quality
news. Just because you're writing using a pronounless third person voice does not mean that you are
objective and it does not mean that you're engaging or that you're not engaging in advocacy.
Education Week is subjectivity wrapped in the guise of objective reporting that advocates positions
favored by the educational industrial complex. The many articles that Sarah Schwartz has written
about reading is certainly evidence of this. So put another way, Education Week is the national
inquire of education and I'm just surprised they haven't written about space aliens yet.
And finally, there are two important differences between an article written by a reporter
for some magazine or news organization and an article written in a peer reviewed academic journal.
First, reporters for magazines and news organizations are reporters. They just report stuff.
They have expertise in reporting things. They are not subject area experts in what they report about.
On the other hand, articles published in peer reviewed journals are usually written by experts
in the field. I write about literacy stuff. Imagine how wrong I would be if I started
suddenly writing about soybeans. So this is the analogy. Andy is to soybeans as Jessica
Winter and Sarah Schwartz are to reading instruction. And the second thing about this,
articles written by reporters may be edited but they're not peer reviewed. They may be
grammatically correct but they can also be grammatically correct. Garbage.
Reporters can write just about anything and say anything. They can and often do report facts out
of context. Or as Emily Hanford, Jessica Winter and Sarah Schwartz do, they can misinterpret facts
or leave out important information. Now, this differs from articles in peer reviewed journals.
These are subjected to blind peer review by a jury of subject matter experts before they're
accepted for publication. So the moral here is never mistake Education Week for reading research
quarterly. All right. Back in September, back to this article, I was sent an article,
The Rise and Fall of Vibes based literacy instruction written by Jessica Winter. And I
should not assume intent on the part of the sender but I believe the article was sent to show me
how wrong I was about things. And this happens quite often by the way, people attempt to make
their point by sending me a description of someone else's point. And my point here is this,
just make your point, support your ideas using a reason and research. Make your point not someone
else's point. So as I said, the sender most likely sent me this article to make a point.
However, I don't think the sender of this article was very happy at me when I began
analyzing the article and pointing out all the factual errors, the misunderstandings and the
plain ignorance in it. So to review, Jessica Winter is an editor at the New Yorker magazine.
And here she writes about family and education. In her article, The Rise and Fall of Vibes based
literacy, this was her attempt to identify the cause of her daughter's perceived reading
difficulties to find a solution and then generalize her findings to all of New York City's
Not a city. Now, in this article, Jessica Winter spends a lot of time on Lucy Cochens.
Like many in the science of reading community, Jessica was very critical of Lucy Cochens
and her units of study program used for reading and writing instruction by New York schools.
Now, some call units of study a curriculum, some a method, some a project, and some even call it
a series. But it really doesn't matter what you call it. It's a thing that teachers in Brooklyn,
New York City schools are supposed to use to teach reading and writing. It's a thing imposed on them
imposed on them by someone outside their classroom. And this thing came from teachers college reading
and writing project, part of teachers college and Columbia at Columbia University. Now, there are
three things to consider about any product, program, curriculum, or series that's purchased
for educational use. And that includes units of study. Number one, any product, program, or curriculum,
that requires special training to use it should not be used. This includes ortingilling him, letters,
and units of study. If it's so gosh darn complicated, it's most likely too cumbersome to be practical.
The best ideas in education are the ones that are practical. The most practical ideas are the ones
that are simple. Teachers should be able to open the box and use it. Point number two, any product,
program, or curriculum that requires you to use it with quote fidelity should not be used. If you
don't use something with fidelity, you are by definition an infidel. Authoritative dictators
and kings have infidels. Reading programs should not. Using a program with fidelity usually means
following a script or recipe exactly as written. And this is educational malpractice. Because students
are not standardized products. They vary greatly based on levels of poverty, ethnicity, race,
environments, and experiences. Teachers should always, always adopt and adapt any program method
approach strategy or lesson to the learners with which they're working. Always. To do otherwise
is to engage in educational malpractice. Yet that's what the for-profit reading programs want
teachers to do. They offer scripted programs to hide the voice of the teacher and separate teachers
from their own experience and expertise. The third point, there are no magical one size fits all
programs, curriculums, methods, or approaches. Sorry. There is no best method. To think otherwise
demonstrates an arrogance of certainty that's certainly unwarranted. This arrogance of certainty
is brought about by a naive understanding of science. Reading research is not a settled science.
Real science is never settled. The field of literacy continues to grow and evolve. And there are no
simple answers to complex issues. One or two studies never settles an issue for all students,
for all times, for all situations, and for all purposes. Doing research with real children in a
classroom is much different from doing research with bacteria in a petri dish. And there's no such
effective method. There are effective methods or effective strategies or effective approaches,
but their effectiveness is determined by how they're used as well as the students and the situation.
What's best for some students in some situations for some purposes may not be best for others.
And at the end of the day, best is determined by what best enables your students what enhances
their ability to create meaning with print, which is reading, and to use print to create meaning,
which is writing, and use these to address real world issues and circumstances, and not to select
bubbles on a standardized test. So let's look at the teacher. It all comes down to the teacher.
It's not the product program curriculum methods or series. It's the teacher. The teacher is the most
significant variable in determining the quality of education our children receive, including
reading instruction. And you can't by your way to good reading instruction. You can't mandate your way
to good reading instruction. You can't standards your way to good reading instruction. You can't
test your way to good reading instruction. You can't legislate your way to good reading instruction,
to good reading instruction and you can't bully your way to good reading instruction.
You can only educate your way to good reading instruction and this means educating teachers.
Teachers need and should be held accountable for continued legitimate professional development,
legitimate and this is different from letters or Orton Gillingham or units of study training.
And by the way, we don't train in higher education. Rats are trained, dogs are trained,
we educate. And education is much different from the short bits of now do this instruction
that describes how to use a specific program or method that's training that's not educating.
Legitimate professional development educates. It occurs over time and includes opportunities
for teachers to interact, experiment, assess and reflect. And it includes opportunities to
continue to develop bodies of knowledge related to learning and human development, research and
the research process, reading research, the reading and writing process, research based theories,
pedagogical strategies related to literacy, reading instruction and assessment among other things.
So preparing teachers. A common I think is found within the science of reading community
is that our teachers aren't being prepared to teach reading. They state that we're not preparing
our teachers to teach reading. And of course, this is another ridiculous statement based on
perception, decontextualize facts and an understanding and a lack of understanding and a yearning
to see something that's not there. A case in point here would be the non-sensory research
and research is in quotes used by Louise Emotes to support her letters training her for profit
letters. So let me tell you about the kinds of research in quotation marks that she cites and
in some cases conducts. And by the way, Dr. Motez has never taught in a classroom. She spent 15
years in private practice as a licensed psychologist in Vermont, but she's never actually taught
reading. Imagine that. Now in one study, the good Dr. Motez created a survey on what she thought
reading teachers should know. Dr. Motez thought that teachers, reading teachers, should know a lot
about linguistics. That's what she thought and I think is them. And she gave her surveys to teachers
and teachers who didn't score well on her survey were deemed unprepared to teach reading.
Now whether or not their students were actually learning to read was considered irrelevant by Dr.
Motez. Imagine that. Another great study cited by Dr. Motez to support her letters program was an
analysis of five different textbooks used in teacher preparation programs. And because these
five textbooks did not include the kinds of things that Dr. Motez thought was necessary to teach
reading, she declared that all teacher education programs were not adequately preparing teachers
to read. I kid you not. And by the way, textbooks are not our curriculum. They're merely tools.
Good professors always supplement. And one more thing about teachers. Master teachers are not
created in any teacher preparation program. It's not possible. In our programs, we prepare
teachers to begin the journey. Hence teacher preparation. We've got only three semesters
in a bit of student teaching and students have a lot of stuff, a lot of learning to be crammed
into three semesters. And that is why it's essential to have continued and legitimate
professional development for teachers. Now let's look at purchasing a program. If New York City
or Brooklyn schools or any school purchased units of study thinking it would be the answer for all
problems related to teaching, reading and writing, we can conclude that they need legitimate
professional development for administrators and curriculum directors. That's how ignorant they
are. How ignorant of them. You merely substitute a substituted one for profit thing for another
for profit thing. And any for profit program is ultimately for profit and not for people.
In other words, if it comes down to including a research based perspective that would limit sales
and enhance literacy or a sketchy perspective like the science of reading that would enhance sales
and limit literacy for profit publishers will always choose the sketchy perspective. That's just
the way it is. And then they'll pay some experts to have a sketchy perspective and print their
sketchy perspectives on the inside cover of their products to promote them. This is a fact of life
in a market based economy without proper restraints. If it comes down to profit or people, profit will
always take the front seat and that's just the way it is. Now let's take a look at balanced literacy
and units of study. Units of study is something you buy, but it's not balanced literacy. It does
not represent balanced literacy. And yes, it could be used in a balanced approach to literacy
instruction, but so could the McGraw-Hill wonders program. These are tools and any tools effectiveness
is determined by how it's used. You could adopt and adapt even the most scripted program and
create a balanced approach to literacy instruction by simply refusing to follow the script and
instead following your students. A balanced approach to reading instruction is not a scripted thing.
It's not a method program curriculum or series and it's not units of study. Rather, it's an approach
in which skills instruction is balanced with opportunities to use these skills in authentic
reading and writing experiences. That's what balanced is and what balanced is is dependent on your
readers. Some readers need more of one thing and less of another and some need less of one thing and
more of another. Children are not standardized products. So Jessica and Sarah and Emily stop using
units of study to represent all of balanced literacy. Balance literacy is a description,
not a thing. And again, balanced literacy is a balance of skills instruction with opportunities
to use these skills in authentic reading and writing experiences.
Skills instruction in a balanced approach to literacy should include things such as phonics,
phonemic awareness, comprehension, vocabulary, word identification, and word recognition. These
should be taught directly and explicitly. And if fluency is a problem, activities to develop
fluency should be included. If word recognition is a problem, maze and close activities should be
included along with simple writing activities. And there should also be daily reading practice,
daily writing activities, and talk and social interaction around books and writing. That's
what balanced literacy is. It's not units of study. No matter what product, program, curriculum,
approach, or series you use, you can make it balanced by including a sufficient amount of daily
reading practice in which children choose the books that they want to read. And of course,
you'd also include daily writing practice. Here, children would choose their writing topics and
write about their experiences. And in the same way, you can make any program unbalanced, and some
people call this structured, by focusing on skills at the expense of real reading, real books and
real books and authentic writing experiences. Structured, structured literacy. In her article,
Jessica calls for structured literacy. And let's take a look at that term, structured literacy.
It sounds good. Structure is always a good thing. Nobody likes chaos,
but there's a continuum, you see, with chaos on one end and control on the other. Structure is a
sliding scale between these two. But unfortunately, when the science of reading community uses the
term structured literacy, they really mean controlled literacy. Here, every element of reading
instruction is controlled. Teachers are controlled by giving them tightly scripted curriculums that
must be followed with fidelity. The content is controlled. All students are taught a prescribed
set of skills in a predetermined order in a specific way. Learning is controlled. Standardized
tests are used to determine achievement. Learning is defined only by test performance.
Reading material is controlled. Students only get to choose their reading material
when they're done with their work, meaning when they've completed their workshops or worksheets.
Otherwise, they're forced to read what's in the program, whether or not they want to read it.
Vocabulary is controlled. Students are giving books that use decodable texts with controlled
vocabularies to reinforce letter sounds. And knowledge and what counts as knowledge is controlled.
Only a very narrow range of research methodologies are deemed appropriate science.
Knowledge generated by controlled experimental research is deemed the only knowledge that counts.
And what is taught at universities is controlled. Not a body of research, but reading laws and
policies determine what is taught. And they're enacted so things like the three queuing systems
cannot be taught and other things must be taught. And this is reinforced, controlled through
accreditation and licensing of teacher candidates. Not a body of research, but accreditation.
We are being bullied. All right, let's talk a little bit about the elephant in the room.
Let's talk about Lucy Cochens. It's always good to have a boogie person if you're trying to
build a movement. Yes, every protagonist needs an antagonist. Christ needs an anti-Christ.
Dudley Do-Right needs snidely whiplash. Bugs Bunny needs Elmer Fudd. Luke Skywalker needs
Darth Vader. Harry Potter needs Lord Voldemort. Dorothy needs the wicked witch. And Snow White
needs an evil queen. And the science of reading community seems to need Lucy Cochens to carry
the plot line. Lucy Cochens has become their Lord Voldemort. Jessica Winter, Emily Hanford,
and Sarah Schwartz seem to need a Lucy Cochens. She's portrayed as the evil queen of literacy
instruction. Now, Lucy Cochens wrote the first edition of her book, The Art of Teaching Writing,
in 1986. And Lucy has made tremendous contributions to our understanding of how to teach reading and
writing along with Donald Graves, Constance Weaver, Frank Smith, Ken and Yedda Goodman,
Louise Rosenblatt, Nancy Aquell, Brian Camborn, Marie Clay, James G, Jerome Harstie, Don Murray,
Jane Hansen, Ann Osteisen, Peter Albault, Stephen Coser, Robert Tierney, and P. David Peterson,
among others. All made tremendous contributions, including Lucy Cochens. But at the end of the day,
Lucy Cochens doesn't represent balanced literacy or meaningful based approaches to literacy instruction.
At the end of the day, Lucy represents Lucy and she speaks for Lucy Cochens. She's promoted her books,
her programs, her products, and her units of study. And that's good. And by the way,
meaning based literacy educators are not reliant on external products. And Lucy doesn't represent
the International Literacy Association or the International Literacy Educators Coalition,
or anybody else. She doesn't represent meaning based educators. And she doesn't represent those who
are opposed to the science of reading nonsense. She doesn't speak for those of us who advocate
teacher empowerment and smaller classes and better pay and working conditions for teachers
and adequate health care and economic opportunities. Or for those of us who are pushing for racial
equity and social justice, she doesn't represent those. There are no reading messiahs. There are no
reading messiahs. The only messiah, the only messiah that meaning based reading educators have
is a wide body of research using diverse research methodology. That is our messiah.
That is our holy book. That is our religion. This has been the reading instruction show.
I am your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.