Readings. This is the Reading Instruction Show.
I am your host, Dr. Andy Johnson. Topic of today's
presentation or conversation is called, Toady's
Transactions and Reading Instruction. And this
is from my upcoming book called, Making Sense
of Reading Teachers Matter. Now, my purpose for
writing this book was to bring clarification.
an additional understanding to, one, the reading
process, two, reading instruction, three, reading
research, and four, reading policies and politics.
And obviously, I think there's a great lack of
understanding related to these things. This I
call the great un -understanding or goo theory.
And as we learned in book one, theories are used
to explain a set of facts and to understand phenomena.
Now, goo theory is the only way that I can account
for the very expensive and pseudoscientific science
of reading mandates that will end up impeding
students' ability to create meaning with print.
And while science is involved with these mandates,
it's a very limited type of science used to ask
a very narrow range of questions. And while research
is cited, it's either A, data and not research,
B, research that has been misinterpreted or overinterpreted,
and C, selected. bits of research. It's the goo.
Now, movies and sequels, despite all the smiling
kids used as props for the pictures and the silvery
promises of Sylvester McMonkey McBean, science
of reading mandates will have a negative impact
on literacy and learning. Students will be less
able to think and use literacy for real world
purposes. And they'll be less motivated to read
good books. Gaps in reading achievement will
widen. And how can I be so certain? Well, you
could certainly ask any kid. who's forced to
sit in a structured literacy class for 60 minutes
or more every day. You certainly could do that.
You could ask them what it's what they like about
reading class and ask them what they've learned
in reading class. Ask them what they're reading
and ask them to describe something they've read.
And of course, this would be anecdotal evidence
of the negative impact of science reading mandates.
Anecdotal evidence, and that's not very good
evidence. You could also sit for a week in a
first grade classroom using structured literacy.
How much joy do you see? How often are students
using literacy for real life purposes? And how
long does it take before you want to leave that
classroom? That too would be anecdotal evidence.
And while this kind of evidence is powerful,
it can be subjected to misinterpretation and
not generalizable. Now the science of reading
insists that only evidence -based instruction
be used to teach reading. And we all agree that
evidence is important. However, here in Minnesota,
as in other states, state reading laws were made
based not on evidence, rather on testimony. Testimony
is not the same as evidence. Testimony is selected
people coming before other selected people and
saying selected things. Testimony is like baking
a cake, when what you get is based on what you
put in. And in the case of the Reed Act here
in Minnesota, what you got was a half -baked
law mandating what teachers must teach, how it
must be taught, when it must be taught, and what
you cannot say under any circumstances. Now,
Figure 3 shows what happened. when kindly old
Mrs. Peterson used illegal reading instruction
in her first grade classroom. On a larger scale,
we've seen this movie before and it did not have
a happy ending. The movie was part of the No
Child Left Behind and the Reading First initiative.
Six billion dollars of taxpayer money was spent
on things that had no impact on children's ability
to comprehend text. Imagine that. That's a very
sad ending. It was a billion dollar boondoggle.
Billions of dollars were wasted on what most
literacy experts could have told you up front
wouldn't work. In fact, they did tell you in
2002, the National Council of Teachers of English.
But policymakers weren't much inclined to listen,
you see. They listened to people who would. They
wouldn't listen to people who would disagree
with their preconceived idea. Besides, they had
testimony. They had ample. testimony. Now here
in Minnesota, the most recent sequel to this
movie is called The Read Act. It's only a hundred
million dollar boondoggle. At the state level,
you can get your boondoggles much cheaper. Bargain
basement boondoggles at the state level. Yes,
you can. Who needs healthcare and nutrition for
kids? Who needs small class sizes, good books
to read, professional working conditions, and
legitimate professional development for teachers
when you can get yourself a first -rate boondoggle?
Big publishing, Scotty, eat, am I right? Now,
note to who's ever publishing this book that
I'm writing, I'm not including you in my critical
analysis of big publishing in what I just said.
You're kind and benevolent. And since you're
publishing my book, you're obviously intelligent
beyond human recognition. And the acquisition
editor, who decided this book should be published?
You will someday be recognized for the great
mind that you are. Perhaps there might even be
a Pulitzer Prize in the future. Now that, my
friends, is an example of toadism, and it's part
of the goo problem. Toadies sometimes call themselves
consultants. Consultants. They promote methods
and say things that just happen to coincide with
the products and services being sold by big publishing.
Quite a coincidence, yes. Right and wrong are
not determined based on what's right and wrong,
rather by what will sell. Toadies are strongly
in support of the current thing. They highly
recommend that which will generate revenue. And
if state legislatures We're convinced that pinning
clothespins on the children's ears enhance reading,
and if clothespin mandates were passed, you'd
soon have a gaggle of toadies lining up to train
teachers how to put clothespins on children's
ears and declaring clothespins products to be
research -based. That is the nature of toadyism.
Now, I admit, I am not above such toady transactions.
Almost anybody will be a toady if the price is
right. The only difference between me and the
current horde of educational toadies is the price.
My price is quite a bit higher, you see. Now,
I often ask myself, what would that price be?
How much would you have to pay me to be a literacy
toady? Realistically, I could be bought for about
25 million dollars. That's my price. For 25 million,
I too would be a consultant. to shill your products.
I, too, will do infomercials disguised as professional
development. I, too, will have a product -based
answer in search of a problem. I, too, will help
develop products that are so complicated that
teachers have to be trained before they're able
to use them. And by the way, you train animals,
you educate humans. And I justify my $25 million
toadism by saying I'm using the money to help
people. Yes, I would. I want to be very upfront
about my toadism. My price is $25 million. So
if someday you see a book written by me describing
the wonders of a specific for -profit method,
product or service, you'll know. that I'm living
large someplace. But this exemplifies the transactional
nature of toadism. Toadies say things because
there's money to be made, and they don't say
other things because it might impact sales. It's
passion with a price tag. It's knowledge for
sale. So I'll leave you with two questions. You
must ask yourself, what is your price for becoming
a toady and what's the ultimate price to our
society for the current epidemic of toadism?
This has been The Reading Instruction Show. I
am your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.