This is The Reading Instruction Show. I am your
host, as always, the colorful one, Dr. Andy Johnson.
Topic of today's podcast is called Selective
Umbridge, full colon. Emily Hanford is an Alexa
app. Now, in my podcasts, YouTubes, and online
articles, I often use colorful metaphors for
things or people. For example, penguins or phonics
penguins. These are people who are obsessed with
phonics instruction, who think that phonics is
the solution for everything. Clowns are people
who think they know a lot about reading instruction
when in actuality they know very little. Number
monkeys are people who think that all learning
can be quantified. and that testing is the solution
to an imaginary literacy crisis. We can test
our way out of this imaginary crisis. Toadies
are educational consultants whose knowledge is
for sale, whose recommendations seem to align
with those who are paying them. And zealots The
word zealot is used to denote a person who is
fanatical and uncompromising in their pursuit
of religious, political, or other ideas. And
the term zealot can be used to describe a person
who is unwilling to make concessions or to change
one's way of thinking, even when faced with overwhelming
evidence. And zealotry is the best way to describe
the impetus behind the current science of reading
movement. Under the guise of good instruction,
they've fabricated a reading crisis. And they
used this fabrication to create laws that disempower
classroom teachers. Teachers are forced to use
scripted one -size -fits -all commercial reading
programs that have no basis in research, but
are instead firmly enmeshed in i -think -a -sons.
Schools are forced to purchase for -profit teacher
professional development programs that have no
basis in legitimate research. Instead of investing
in things that could actually impact learning,
hundreds of millions of dollars in states are
being wasted to pay for expensive commercial
products and services. And of course I realize
that not every single person who aligns with
the current science of reading movement disregards
scientific principles. not literally, not every
single one of them. It's a bit of hyperbole,
you see. From my experience, it seems a great
many of them seem to do so. And not all science
of reading enthusiasts are zealots, but a great
many certainly display zealous behaviors. And
if it walks like a zealot and quacks like a zealot,
well. So, polite words, it brings me no joy to
have to use colorful metaphors. Okay, it brings
me a little joy. But for years, many of us have
tried to use research and reason to make our
case. But along comes Emily Hanford, a journalist.
with a ready -made platform who just says stuff.
And because of the emotional tug of what she
says, people believe her. After all, listening
to a radio documentary that provides simple answers
is much easier than reading and assimilating
a bunch of scholarly work with complexity and
nuance. So when research and reason no longer
work, you must try other things. So yes, occasionally
I step out from behind my timid third -person
objective voice. I use metaphors and analogy
to create memorable images that seem to get through
some of the haze of all that politely worded
blabber. But the baseless accusations coming
out of the politely worded blabber are much more
offensive than a couple of my two -bit metaphors.
Making teachers and professors public pinatas
to whack about simply because they can't whack
back is much more offensive than a couple of
my poorly worded analogies. And tearing away
at the fabric of public education and teacher
autonomy is much more offensive than the names
I have given to the fabric terrors. What about
the children? They say in their soft pleading
voices. What about the children? We must protect
the children. Are my images, my words, are they
offensive? Yes, we must protect the children,
which is exactly why some of us fight so hard
to get research -based reading instruction along
with legitimate professional development and
teacher autonomy back into our classrooms. Why
we work so hard to get better working conditions
and pay for teachers. Now, Louisa Moats regularly
says that teachers are not knowledgeable. They
don't know the right things. They're unprepared.
They don't know how to teach reading, and professors
aren't teaching the right things. Might this
be a little offensive? And compare what I say
to the subtle and often not -so -subtle statements
made in inferences. Teachers are ignorant. Teachers
aren't very smart. Teachers are lazy. Teachers
don't know how to teach reading. Teachers need
to be told how to teach reading. We can't trust
teachers. We need to hold them accountable. We
need to disempower them. Literacy professors
are ignorant and teach the wrong things. Teachers
have an agenda other than helping each child
develop his or her full potential. Professors
have an agenda other than educating students.
Literacy professors aren't doing their job. We
need to mandate certain things and outlaw other
things. Yes, I know that it's unbecoming of a
literacy professor. to make broad generalizations
like I have. And I know that I should be better
than that, better than calling people names.
But I'm not. I'm not better than that at all.
In fact, I'm most likely worse than that. Now
let's take a look at the metaphor. In a recent
show, I referred to Emily Hanford as the Alexa
app of reading instruction. And this was a metaphor,
a common literary device in which one makes a
comparison without using the words like or as.
It creates an image. For example, when we say
America is a melting pot, we don't literally
mean there's a big pot bubbling someplace. Metaphors
create images and communicate things that an
accumulation of words simply can't. And I compared
Emily Hanford to an Alexa app. Is it an apt comparison?
Yes. She says things without recourse. You can't
trust her as a valid source of information. She
presents things without context, very much like
my Alexa app. For example, my Alexa app said
that her net worth was $15 million. Interesting,
yes? Do I trust this information? Do I think
it's accurate? Maybe my Alexa app is Emily Hanford
of Internet Information. Now recently somebody
took great umbrage of my use of metaphor. I was
said to have called her an Alexa app. Oh, the
horror! But I didn't call her an Alexa app. I
didn't say Emily Hanford is an Alexa app. If
I wanted to call her a name, I could do far better
than calling her an Alexa app. However, a person
took great umbrage, but it seems to be selective
umbrage. It seems to be something else disguised
as umbrage. It seems to be false umbrage or pseudo
umbrage. I mean, how could you possibly get all
umbraided by someone using a metaphor to compare
somebody to an Alexa app? And here's where the
selective umbrage kicks in. Again, consider how
teachers have been demeaned and impugned by Emily
Hanford, Louisa Moats, and the Science of Reading
movement. Their pretty words may not have contained
metaphors, but think for a minute what's been
said about classroom teachers and public education.
Think of the constant false narrative teachers
have had to endure for years. That's much worse
than calling someone an Alexa app, selective
umbrage. Now let's look at an analogy. An analogy
is another literary device that uses something
familiar to help you understand something new.
For example, dog is to bone as Andy is to the
euphonium. We know dogs love bones. The image
of a dog greedily chewing on a bone is created
in our head. So we can assume that Andy loves
the euphonium as much as a dog loves bones. You
shoehorn the new thing inside the known thing
and understanding is enhanced considerably. Now,
Emily Hanford is a journalist. Journalists just
write things. People tell them things and they
write it down. There's no checks and balances.
There's no peer review. Things are pulled out
of context often so that they're technically
correct but conveniently inaccurate. Journalists
write stuff. This is what they do. And in this
context I wrote, you can't ask a skunk not to
stink, meaning that a journalist is going to
do what journalists do, just as a skunk does
what a skunk does. I used an analogy. Now I could
have said you can't ask a bunny not to hop or
a snake not to slither, but it just doesn't roll
off the tongue quite the same. Andy is to writing
as monkeys are to throwing poop. Chihuahuas are
small and make a lot of noise barking at things.
Andy is a small man who makes a lot of noise.
You can't ask a chihuahua not to bark. Metaphors
and analogies are effective in conveying certain
information because of the visual image created.
If you want to take umbrage at something, and
there's plenty of umbrage -worthy things, take
umbrage at the money wasted to pay for commercial
products and services related to reading instruction.
Take umbrage at overcrowded classrooms and poor
teaching conditions. Take umbrage at low teacher
pay and lack of legitimate professional development
opportunities. Take umbrage at tax cuts that
make tuition costs rise. Take umbrage when the
public cannot afford to go to our public colleges
and universities. Take umbrage at the lack of
healthcare, food insecurity, and mass shootings.
Yes, I'm an offensive, mouthy little man. But
I try to be offensive and mouthy for a purpose.
So save your umbrage for things that are truly
umbrage -worthy. This has been The Reading Instruction
Show. I'm your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.