1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:05,440
This is the reading instruction show. I'm your genial host, Dr. Andy Johnson.

2
00:00:05,440 --> 00:00:12,800
Topic of today's podcast is this. There are no reading messiahs. Now, this is the sixth in a

3
00:00:12,800 --> 00:00:18,720
series of podcasts looking at an article published in the New Yorker magazine by Jessica Winter.

4
00:00:19,600 --> 00:00:26,000
And I'm continuing my analysis here because so much of what was in this article was a whole lot

5
00:00:26,000 --> 00:00:32,560
of incorrect. And the incorrectness was of such a degree that I needed to correct it.

6
00:00:33,760 --> 00:00:40,160
As well, the incorrectness displayed by Jessica Winter in this article is reflected in the

7
00:00:40,160 --> 00:00:47,200
incorrectness displayed by Emily Hanford, the Reading League, the National Dyslexia Association,

8
00:00:47,200 --> 00:00:55,360
and Sarah Schwartz of Education Week. Now, a little aside, Education Week, it calls itself

9
00:00:55,360 --> 00:01:02,640
the number one source of nonpartisan, high quality news and insights covering the K-12

10
00:01:02,640 --> 00:01:11,600
educational education sector. That's what they say about themselves. Now, analysis of Education Week

11
00:01:11,600 --> 00:01:17,680
have been done elsewhere and I don't want to stray down this path, but suffice to say,

12
00:01:17,680 --> 00:01:30,160
Education Week is definitely not objective and it is not nonpartisan and it is not high quality

13
00:01:30,160 --> 00:01:40,560
news. Just because you're writing using a pronounless third person voice does not mean that you are

14
00:01:40,560 --> 00:01:47,920
objective and it does not mean that you're engaging or that you're not engaging in advocacy.

15
00:01:49,360 --> 00:01:57,360
Education Week is subjectivity wrapped in the guise of objective reporting that advocates positions

16
00:01:58,080 --> 00:02:05,680
favored by the educational industrial complex. The many articles that Sarah Schwartz has written

17
00:02:05,680 --> 00:02:15,520
about reading is certainly evidence of this. So put another way, Education Week is the national

18
00:02:15,520 --> 00:02:23,040
inquire of education and I'm just surprised they haven't written about space aliens yet.

19
00:02:24,880 --> 00:02:31,120
And finally, there are two important differences between an article written by a reporter

20
00:02:31,120 --> 00:02:38,960
for some magazine or news organization and an article written in a peer reviewed academic journal.

21
00:02:40,080 --> 00:02:49,440
First, reporters for magazines and news organizations are reporters. They just report stuff.

22
00:02:49,440 --> 00:03:00,240
They have expertise in reporting things. They are not subject area experts in what they report about.

23
00:03:02,160 --> 00:03:08,080
On the other hand, articles published in peer reviewed journals are usually written by experts

24
00:03:08,080 --> 00:03:16,640
in the field. I write about literacy stuff. Imagine how wrong I would be if I started

25
00:03:16,640 --> 00:03:26,480
suddenly writing about soybeans. So this is the analogy. Andy is to soybeans as Jessica

26
00:03:26,480 --> 00:03:34,800
Winter and Sarah Schwartz are to reading instruction. And the second thing about this,

27
00:03:34,800 --> 00:03:42,720
articles written by reporters may be edited but they're not peer reviewed. They may be

28
00:03:42,720 --> 00:03:48,160
grammatically correct but they can also be grammatically correct. Garbage.

29
00:03:49,600 --> 00:03:57,600
Reporters can write just about anything and say anything. They can and often do report facts out

30
00:03:57,600 --> 00:04:06,000
of context. Or as Emily Hanford, Jessica Winter and Sarah Schwartz do, they can misinterpret facts

31
00:04:06,000 --> 00:04:13,520
or leave out important information. Now, this differs from articles in peer reviewed journals.

32
00:04:14,160 --> 00:04:21,680
These are subjected to blind peer review by a jury of subject matter experts before they're

33
00:04:21,680 --> 00:04:31,280
accepted for publication. So the moral here is never mistake Education Week for reading research

34
00:04:31,280 --> 00:04:38,560
quarterly. All right. Back in September, back to this article, I was sent an article,

35
00:04:38,560 --> 00:04:45,920
The Rise and Fall of Vibes based literacy instruction written by Jessica Winter. And I

36
00:04:45,920 --> 00:04:54,000
should not assume intent on the part of the sender but I believe the article was sent to show me

37
00:04:54,000 --> 00:05:01,840
how wrong I was about things. And this happens quite often by the way, people attempt to make

38
00:05:01,840 --> 00:05:09,360
their point by sending me a description of someone else's point. And my point here is this,

39
00:05:09,360 --> 00:05:18,880
just make your point, support your ideas using a reason and research. Make your point not someone

40
00:05:18,880 --> 00:05:26,640
else's point. So as I said, the sender most likely sent me this article to make a point.

41
00:05:28,160 --> 00:05:34,400
However, I don't think the sender of this article was very happy at me when I began

42
00:05:34,400 --> 00:05:39,600
analyzing the article and pointing out all the factual errors, the misunderstandings and the

43
00:05:39,600 --> 00:05:46,640
plain ignorance in it. So to review, Jessica Winter is an editor at the New Yorker magazine.

44
00:05:46,640 --> 00:05:54,640
And here she writes about family and education. In her article, The Rise and Fall of Vibes based

45
00:05:54,640 --> 00:06:00,640
literacy, this was her attempt to identify the cause of her daughter's perceived reading

46
00:06:00,640 --> 00:06:07,280
difficulties to find a solution and then generalize her findings to all of New York City's

47
00:06:07,280 --> 00:06:17,360
Not a city. Now, in this article, Jessica Winter spends a lot of time on Lucy Cochens.

48
00:06:18,800 --> 00:06:25,760
Like many in the science of reading community, Jessica was very critical of Lucy Cochens

49
00:06:26,320 --> 00:06:32,720
and her units of study program used for reading and writing instruction by New York schools.

50
00:06:32,720 --> 00:06:42,240
Now, some call units of study a curriculum, some a method, some a project, and some even call it

51
00:06:42,240 --> 00:06:50,960
a series. But it really doesn't matter what you call it. It's a thing that teachers in Brooklyn,

52
00:06:51,840 --> 00:07:00,640
New York City schools are supposed to use to teach reading and writing. It's a thing imposed on them

53
00:07:00,640 --> 00:07:08,000
imposed on them by someone outside their classroom. And this thing came from teachers college reading

54
00:07:08,000 --> 00:07:15,520
and writing project, part of teachers college and Columbia at Columbia University. Now, there are

55
00:07:15,520 --> 00:07:25,120
three things to consider about any product, program, curriculum, or series that's purchased

56
00:07:25,120 --> 00:07:32,640
for educational use. And that includes units of study. Number one, any product, program, or curriculum,

57
00:07:33,680 --> 00:07:42,480
that requires special training to use it should not be used. This includes ortingilling him, letters,

58
00:07:42,480 --> 00:07:51,360
and units of study. If it's so gosh darn complicated, it's most likely too cumbersome to be practical.

59
00:07:51,360 --> 00:07:58,720
The best ideas in education are the ones that are practical. The most practical ideas are the ones

60
00:07:58,720 --> 00:08:08,880
that are simple. Teachers should be able to open the box and use it. Point number two, any product,

61
00:08:08,880 --> 00:08:18,800
program, or curriculum that requires you to use it with quote fidelity should not be used. If you

62
00:08:18,800 --> 00:08:26,960
don't use something with fidelity, you are by definition an infidel. Authoritative dictators

63
00:08:26,960 --> 00:08:36,800
and kings have infidels. Reading programs should not. Using a program with fidelity usually means

64
00:08:36,800 --> 00:08:47,760
following a script or recipe exactly as written. And this is educational malpractice. Because students

65
00:08:47,760 --> 00:08:55,440
are not standardized products. They vary greatly based on levels of poverty, ethnicity, race,

66
00:08:55,440 --> 00:09:06,320
environments, and experiences. Teachers should always, always adopt and adapt any program method

67
00:09:06,320 --> 00:09:15,040
approach strategy or lesson to the learners with which they're working. Always. To do otherwise

68
00:09:15,040 --> 00:09:23,200
is to engage in educational malpractice. Yet that's what the for-profit reading programs want

69
00:09:23,200 --> 00:09:32,000
teachers to do. They offer scripted programs to hide the voice of the teacher and separate teachers

70
00:09:32,000 --> 00:09:40,480
from their own experience and expertise. The third point, there are no magical one size fits all

71
00:09:40,480 --> 00:09:52,640
programs, curriculums, methods, or approaches. Sorry. There is no best method. To think otherwise

72
00:09:52,640 --> 00:10:00,880
demonstrates an arrogance of certainty that's certainly unwarranted. This arrogance of certainty

73
00:10:00,880 --> 00:10:10,880
is brought about by a naive understanding of science. Reading research is not a settled science.

74
00:10:11,760 --> 00:10:20,960
Real science is never settled. The field of literacy continues to grow and evolve. And there are no

75
00:10:20,960 --> 00:10:31,920
simple answers to complex issues. One or two studies never settles an issue for all students,

76
00:10:31,920 --> 00:10:41,600
for all times, for all situations, and for all purposes. Doing research with real children in a

77
00:10:41,600 --> 00:10:50,800
classroom is much different from doing research with bacteria in a petri dish. And there's no such

78
00:10:50,800 --> 00:10:59,920
effective method. There are effective methods or effective strategies or effective approaches,

79
00:10:59,920 --> 00:11:08,720
but their effectiveness is determined by how they're used as well as the students and the situation.

80
00:11:10,000 --> 00:11:16,560
What's best for some students in some situations for some purposes may not be best for others.

81
00:11:16,560 --> 00:11:25,840
And at the end of the day, best is determined by what best enables your students what enhances

82
00:11:25,840 --> 00:11:32,400
their ability to create meaning with print, which is reading, and to use print to create meaning,

83
00:11:32,400 --> 00:11:40,880
which is writing, and use these to address real world issues and circumstances, and not to select

84
00:11:40,880 --> 00:11:52,160
bubbles on a standardized test. So let's look at the teacher. It all comes down to the teacher.

85
00:11:53,520 --> 00:12:04,880
It's not the product program curriculum methods or series. It's the teacher. The teacher is the most

86
00:12:04,880 --> 00:12:11,360
significant variable in determining the quality of education our children receive, including

87
00:12:11,360 --> 00:12:20,160
reading instruction. And you can't by your way to good reading instruction. You can't mandate your way

88
00:12:20,160 --> 00:12:27,200
to good reading instruction. You can't standards your way to good reading instruction. You can't

89
00:12:27,200 --> 00:12:33,600
test your way to good reading instruction. You can't legislate your way to good reading instruction,

90
00:12:33,600 --> 00:12:39,680
to good reading instruction and you can't bully your way to good reading instruction.

91
00:12:40,800 --> 00:12:49,440
You can only educate your way to good reading instruction and this means educating teachers.

92
00:12:51,040 --> 00:12:59,360
Teachers need and should be held accountable for continued legitimate professional development,

93
00:12:59,360 --> 00:13:06,400
legitimate and this is different from letters or Orton Gillingham or units of study training.

94
00:13:07,200 --> 00:13:14,080
And by the way, we don't train in higher education. Rats are trained, dogs are trained,

95
00:13:14,880 --> 00:13:23,040
we educate. And education is much different from the short bits of now do this instruction

96
00:13:23,040 --> 00:13:32,880
that describes how to use a specific program or method that's training that's not educating.

97
00:13:35,360 --> 00:13:44,560
Legitimate professional development educates. It occurs over time and includes opportunities

98
00:13:44,560 --> 00:13:53,840
for teachers to interact, experiment, assess and reflect. And it includes opportunities to

99
00:13:53,840 --> 00:14:00,560
continue to develop bodies of knowledge related to learning and human development, research and

100
00:14:00,560 --> 00:14:07,440
the research process, reading research, the reading and writing process, research based theories,

101
00:14:07,440 --> 00:14:14,320
pedagogical strategies related to literacy, reading instruction and assessment among other things.

102
00:14:15,920 --> 00:14:22,800
So preparing teachers. A common I think is found within the science of reading community

103
00:14:22,800 --> 00:14:32,080
is that our teachers aren't being prepared to teach reading. They state that we're not preparing

104
00:14:32,080 --> 00:14:37,840
our teachers to teach reading. And of course, this is another ridiculous statement based on

105
00:14:37,840 --> 00:14:44,800
perception, decontextualize facts and an understanding and a lack of understanding and a yearning

106
00:14:45,360 --> 00:14:53,520
to see something that's not there. A case in point here would be the non-sensory research

107
00:14:53,520 --> 00:15:00,880
and research is in quotes used by Louise Emotes to support her letters training her for profit

108
00:15:00,880 --> 00:15:09,120
letters. So let me tell you about the kinds of research in quotation marks that she cites and

109
00:15:09,120 --> 00:15:17,200
in some cases conducts. And by the way, Dr. Motez has never taught in a classroom. She spent 15

110
00:15:17,200 --> 00:15:25,120
years in private practice as a licensed psychologist in Vermont, but she's never actually taught

111
00:15:25,120 --> 00:15:33,840
reading. Imagine that. Now in one study, the good Dr. Motez created a survey on what she thought

112
00:15:33,840 --> 00:15:40,560
reading teachers should know. Dr. Motez thought that teachers, reading teachers, should know a lot

113
00:15:40,560 --> 00:15:49,920
about linguistics. That's what she thought and I think is them. And she gave her surveys to teachers

114
00:15:49,920 --> 00:15:57,200
and teachers who didn't score well on her survey were deemed unprepared to teach reading.

115
00:15:58,800 --> 00:16:04,160
Now whether or not their students were actually learning to read was considered irrelevant by Dr.

116
00:16:04,160 --> 00:16:11,920
Motez. Imagine that. Another great study cited by Dr. Motez to support her letters program was an

117
00:16:11,920 --> 00:16:18,880
analysis of five different textbooks used in teacher preparation programs. And because these

118
00:16:18,880 --> 00:16:26,480
five textbooks did not include the kinds of things that Dr. Motez thought was necessary to teach

119
00:16:26,480 --> 00:16:34,160
reading, she declared that all teacher education programs were not adequately preparing teachers

120
00:16:34,160 --> 00:16:43,600
to read. I kid you not. And by the way, textbooks are not our curriculum. They're merely tools.

121
00:16:43,600 --> 00:16:52,320
Good professors always supplement. And one more thing about teachers. Master teachers are not

122
00:16:52,320 --> 00:17:01,600
created in any teacher preparation program. It's not possible. In our programs, we prepare

123
00:17:01,600 --> 00:17:08,960
teachers to begin the journey. Hence teacher preparation. We've got only three semesters

124
00:17:08,960 --> 00:17:16,560
in a bit of student teaching and students have a lot of stuff, a lot of learning to be crammed

125
00:17:16,560 --> 00:17:25,360
into three semesters. And that is why it's essential to have continued and legitimate

126
00:17:25,360 --> 00:17:34,160
professional development for teachers. Now let's look at purchasing a program. If New York City

127
00:17:34,160 --> 00:17:41,680
or Brooklyn schools or any school purchased units of study thinking it would be the answer for all

128
00:17:41,680 --> 00:17:49,360
problems related to teaching, reading and writing, we can conclude that they need legitimate

129
00:17:49,360 --> 00:17:56,400
professional development for administrators and curriculum directors. That's how ignorant they

130
00:17:56,400 --> 00:18:04,720
are. How ignorant of them. You merely substitute a substituted one for profit thing for another

131
00:18:04,720 --> 00:18:13,840
for profit thing. And any for profit program is ultimately for profit and not for people.

132
00:18:15,040 --> 00:18:21,760
In other words, if it comes down to including a research based perspective that would limit sales

133
00:18:21,760 --> 00:18:30,080
and enhance literacy or a sketchy perspective like the science of reading that would enhance sales

134
00:18:30,080 --> 00:18:39,680
and limit literacy for profit publishers will always choose the sketchy perspective. That's just

135
00:18:39,680 --> 00:18:46,000
the way it is. And then they'll pay some experts to have a sketchy perspective and print their

136
00:18:46,000 --> 00:18:53,200
sketchy perspectives on the inside cover of their products to promote them. This is a fact of life

137
00:18:53,200 --> 00:19:01,360
in a market based economy without proper restraints. If it comes down to profit or people, profit will

138
00:19:01,360 --> 00:19:09,360
always take the front seat and that's just the way it is. Now let's take a look at balanced literacy

139
00:19:09,360 --> 00:19:19,600
and units of study. Units of study is something you buy, but it's not balanced literacy. It does

140
00:19:19,600 --> 00:19:28,000
not represent balanced literacy. And yes, it could be used in a balanced approach to literacy

141
00:19:28,000 --> 00:19:38,000
instruction, but so could the McGraw-Hill wonders program. These are tools and any tools effectiveness

142
00:19:38,000 --> 00:19:47,040
is determined by how it's used. You could adopt and adapt even the most scripted program and

143
00:19:47,040 --> 00:19:54,080
create a balanced approach to literacy instruction by simply refusing to follow the script and

144
00:19:54,080 --> 00:20:02,080
instead following your students. A balanced approach to reading instruction is not a scripted thing.

145
00:20:02,080 --> 00:20:13,040
It's not a method program curriculum or series and it's not units of study. Rather, it's an approach

146
00:20:13,040 --> 00:20:22,160
in which skills instruction is balanced with opportunities to use these skills in authentic

147
00:20:22,160 --> 00:20:32,160
reading and writing experiences. That's what balanced is and what balanced is is dependent on your

148
00:20:32,160 --> 00:20:39,760
readers. Some readers need more of one thing and less of another and some need less of one thing and

149
00:20:39,760 --> 00:20:50,800
more of another. Children are not standardized products. So Jessica and Sarah and Emily stop using

150
00:20:50,800 --> 00:21:00,240
units of study to represent all of balanced literacy. Balance literacy is a description,

151
00:21:00,880 --> 00:21:10,080
not a thing. And again, balanced literacy is a balance of skills instruction with opportunities

152
00:21:10,080 --> 00:21:15,520
to use these skills in authentic reading and writing experiences.

153
00:21:15,520 --> 00:21:23,120
Skills instruction in a balanced approach to literacy should include things such as phonics,

154
00:21:23,120 --> 00:21:29,520
phonemic awareness, comprehension, vocabulary, word identification, and word recognition. These

155
00:21:29,520 --> 00:21:37,920
should be taught directly and explicitly. And if fluency is a problem, activities to develop

156
00:21:37,920 --> 00:21:46,080
fluency should be included. If word recognition is a problem, maze and close activities should be

157
00:21:46,080 --> 00:21:51,920
included along with simple writing activities. And there should also be daily reading practice,

158
00:21:52,480 --> 00:21:58,640
daily writing activities, and talk and social interaction around books and writing. That's

159
00:21:58,640 --> 00:22:09,760
what balanced literacy is. It's not units of study. No matter what product, program, curriculum,

160
00:22:09,760 --> 00:22:16,800
approach, or series you use, you can make it balanced by including a sufficient amount of daily

161
00:22:16,800 --> 00:22:23,520
reading practice in which children choose the books that they want to read. And of course,

162
00:22:23,520 --> 00:22:29,680
you'd also include daily writing practice. Here, children would choose their writing topics and

163
00:22:29,680 --> 00:22:38,400
write about their experiences. And in the same way, you can make any program unbalanced, and some

164
00:22:38,400 --> 00:22:46,480
people call this structured, by focusing on skills at the expense of real reading, real books and

165
00:22:46,480 --> 00:22:56,240
real books and authentic writing experiences. Structured, structured literacy. In her article,

166
00:22:56,240 --> 00:23:05,360
Jessica calls for structured literacy. And let's take a look at that term, structured literacy.

167
00:23:06,080 --> 00:23:14,000
It sounds good. Structure is always a good thing. Nobody likes chaos,

168
00:23:14,000 --> 00:23:20,960
but there's a continuum, you see, with chaos on one end and control on the other. Structure is a

169
00:23:20,960 --> 00:23:29,760
sliding scale between these two. But unfortunately, when the science of reading community uses the

170
00:23:29,760 --> 00:23:39,600
term structured literacy, they really mean controlled literacy. Here, every element of reading

171
00:23:39,600 --> 00:23:48,240
instruction is controlled. Teachers are controlled by giving them tightly scripted curriculums that

172
00:23:48,240 --> 00:23:55,360
must be followed with fidelity. The content is controlled. All students are taught a prescribed

173
00:23:55,360 --> 00:24:03,680
set of skills in a predetermined order in a specific way. Learning is controlled. Standardized

174
00:24:03,680 --> 00:24:10,240
tests are used to determine achievement. Learning is defined only by test performance.

175
00:24:11,440 --> 00:24:16,640
Reading material is controlled. Students only get to choose their reading material

176
00:24:16,640 --> 00:24:22,160
when they're done with their work, meaning when they've completed their workshops or worksheets.

177
00:24:22,880 --> 00:24:29,040
Otherwise, they're forced to read what's in the program, whether or not they want to read it.

178
00:24:29,040 --> 00:24:37,680
Vocabulary is controlled. Students are giving books that use decodable texts with controlled

179
00:24:37,680 --> 00:24:46,800
vocabularies to reinforce letter sounds. And knowledge and what counts as knowledge is controlled.

180
00:24:48,560 --> 00:24:54,960
Only a very narrow range of research methodologies are deemed appropriate science.

181
00:24:54,960 --> 00:25:01,600
Knowledge generated by controlled experimental research is deemed the only knowledge that counts.

182
00:25:02,960 --> 00:25:11,200
And what is taught at universities is controlled. Not a body of research, but reading laws and

183
00:25:11,200 --> 00:25:18,400
policies determine what is taught. And they're enacted so things like the three queuing systems

184
00:25:18,400 --> 00:25:26,000
cannot be taught and other things must be taught. And this is reinforced, controlled through

185
00:25:26,000 --> 00:25:34,560
accreditation and licensing of teacher candidates. Not a body of research, but accreditation.

186
00:25:34,560 --> 00:25:40,320
We are being bullied. All right, let's talk a little bit about the elephant in the room.

187
00:25:40,320 --> 00:25:47,600
Let's talk about Lucy Cochens. It's always good to have a boogie person if you're trying to

188
00:25:47,600 --> 00:25:55,520
build a movement. Yes, every protagonist needs an antagonist. Christ needs an anti-Christ.

189
00:25:56,240 --> 00:26:02,400
Dudley Do-Right needs snidely whiplash. Bugs Bunny needs Elmer Fudd. Luke Skywalker needs

190
00:26:02,400 --> 00:26:09,360
Darth Vader. Harry Potter needs Lord Voldemort. Dorothy needs the wicked witch. And Snow White

191
00:26:09,360 --> 00:26:18,240
needs an evil queen. And the science of reading community seems to need Lucy Cochens to carry

192
00:26:18,240 --> 00:26:27,120
the plot line. Lucy Cochens has become their Lord Voldemort. Jessica Winter, Emily Hanford,

193
00:26:27,120 --> 00:26:36,480
and Sarah Schwartz seem to need a Lucy Cochens. She's portrayed as the evil queen of literacy

194
00:26:36,480 --> 00:26:44,000
instruction. Now, Lucy Cochens wrote the first edition of her book, The Art of Teaching Writing,

195
00:26:44,000 --> 00:26:53,760
in 1986. And Lucy has made tremendous contributions to our understanding of how to teach reading and

196
00:26:53,760 --> 00:27:01,040
writing along with Donald Graves, Constance Weaver, Frank Smith, Ken and Yedda Goodman,

197
00:27:01,040 --> 00:27:10,080
Louise Rosenblatt, Nancy Aquell, Brian Camborn, Marie Clay, James G, Jerome Harstie, Don Murray,

198
00:27:10,080 --> 00:27:17,520
Jane Hansen, Ann Osteisen, Peter Albault, Stephen Coser, Robert Tierney, and P. David Peterson,

199
00:27:17,520 --> 00:27:26,160
among others. All made tremendous contributions, including Lucy Cochens. But at the end of the day,

200
00:27:26,160 --> 00:27:33,840
Lucy Cochens doesn't represent balanced literacy or meaningful based approaches to literacy instruction.

201
00:27:35,120 --> 00:27:44,400
At the end of the day, Lucy represents Lucy and she speaks for Lucy Cochens. She's promoted her books,

202
00:27:44,400 --> 00:27:51,680
her programs, her products, and her units of study. And that's good. And by the way,

203
00:27:51,680 --> 00:27:59,120
meaning based literacy educators are not reliant on external products. And Lucy doesn't represent

204
00:27:59,120 --> 00:28:05,120
the International Literacy Association or the International Literacy Educators Coalition,

205
00:28:05,760 --> 00:28:13,920
or anybody else. She doesn't represent meaning based educators. And she doesn't represent those who

206
00:28:13,920 --> 00:28:20,480
are opposed to the science of reading nonsense. She doesn't speak for those of us who advocate

207
00:28:20,480 --> 00:28:26,640
teacher empowerment and smaller classes and better pay and working conditions for teachers

208
00:28:26,640 --> 00:28:33,600
and adequate health care and economic opportunities. Or for those of us who are pushing for racial

209
00:28:33,600 --> 00:28:43,600
equity and social justice, she doesn't represent those. There are no reading messiahs. There are no

210
00:28:43,600 --> 00:28:51,840
reading messiahs. The only messiah, the only messiah that meaning based reading educators have

211
00:28:52,400 --> 00:29:00,160
is a wide body of research using diverse research methodology. That is our messiah.

212
00:29:00,800 --> 00:29:08,160
That is our holy book. That is our religion. This has been the reading instruction show.

213
00:29:08,160 --> 00:29:16,720
I am your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.