WEBVTT

00:00:00.170 --> 00:00:03.490
This is The Reading Instruction Show. I'm your

00:00:03.490 --> 00:00:07.690
host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson. Topic of today's

00:00:07.690 --> 00:00:14.210
show, dyslexia summits, disinvitation, and abrasiveness.

00:00:15.349 --> 00:00:18.910
Now, a couple months ago, I recorded an online

00:00:18.910 --> 00:00:23.230
interview for a dyslexia summit. I also put together

00:00:23.230 --> 00:00:27.750
and recorded a short video presentation. These

00:00:27.750 --> 00:00:31.699
were both. to be shown at a dyslexia summit.

00:00:32.560 --> 00:00:36.380
I'd agreed to then be present online at the summit

00:00:36.380 --> 00:00:41.460
for a live question and answer session. But I

00:00:41.460 --> 00:00:45.579
discovered on the day of the summit that I was

00:00:45.579 --> 00:00:52.200
disinvited. Imagine that. My invitation was rescinded,

00:00:52.579 --> 00:00:57.659
withdrawn, taken away, revoked, recalled, annulled.

00:00:58.320 --> 00:01:03.939
without so much as a disinviting word. No, it's

00:01:03.939 --> 00:01:08.560
not really a big deal. I hadn't prepared a large

00:01:08.560 --> 00:01:12.799
presentation and I didn't make travel plans,

00:01:13.239 --> 00:01:17.959
but the fact remains I was disinvited. I was

00:01:17.959 --> 00:01:23.189
first invited and then I was not. Disinvitations

00:01:23.189 --> 00:01:26.370
are not an unexpected occurrence for those whose

00:01:26.370 --> 00:01:29.450
views don't align with the current science of

00:01:29.450 --> 00:01:33.129
reading view on things. And as I said, it's not

00:01:33.129 --> 00:01:36.670
a big deal. So if it's not a big deal, why are

00:01:36.670 --> 00:01:40.450
you writing about it? He asked. I'm writing because

00:01:40.450 --> 00:01:46.510
it's illustrative of a larger trend. The stated

00:01:46.510 --> 00:01:52.120
reason for my disinvitation was that the writing

00:01:52.120 --> 00:01:56.140
tone used on some of my digital platforms is

00:01:56.140 --> 00:02:00.159
quote, fairly abrasive when speaking about those

00:02:00.159 --> 00:02:04.019
and other camps in the reading world unquote.

00:02:05.659 --> 00:02:11.219
Abrasive tones and reading camps, both of these

00:02:11.219 --> 00:02:14.860
need a bit of unpacking and exploring and explaining.

00:02:15.560 --> 00:02:20.379
In this podcast, I'll be looking just at abrasive

00:02:20.379 --> 00:02:23.960
writing tones, and in the next, I'll examine

00:02:23.960 --> 00:02:27.719
reading camps. So let's take a look at abrasive

00:02:27.719 --> 00:02:32.159
writing tones. First, a bit of context is necessary.

00:02:33.120 --> 00:02:37.240
We live in a time when it has become acceptable

00:02:37.240 --> 00:02:40.780
to attack those who have differing views on things.

00:02:41.370 --> 00:02:45.090
Those who've been unable to sustain their arguments

00:02:45.090 --> 00:02:48.990
regarding effective reading instruction have

00:02:48.990 --> 00:02:52.469
resorted to distortion, mischaracterization,

00:02:53.729 --> 00:02:57.610
and convenient mistruths to make their case.

00:02:58.729 --> 00:03:02.930
They've tried to silence, belittle, demean, and

00:03:02.930 --> 00:03:08.289
even disinvite those who disagree. Teachers and

00:03:08.289 --> 00:03:11.430
administrators who do not fall in line with the

00:03:11.430 --> 00:03:14.289
science of reading mandates have been bullied

00:03:14.289 --> 00:03:18.889
and threatened. College professors are forced

00:03:18.889 --> 00:03:24.469
to teach what they know is untrue. And teachers

00:03:24.469 --> 00:03:27.729
are required to engage in what they know to be

00:03:27.729 --> 00:03:32.639
educational malpractice. This, my friends, is

00:03:32.639 --> 00:03:36.099
the context in which my tone was found to be,

00:03:36.099 --> 00:03:41.860
quote, fairly abrasive, unquote. Force compliance.

00:03:42.280 --> 00:03:46.659
To be clear, I was not disinvited because the

00:03:46.659 --> 00:03:51.300
information I put forth was inaccurate or incorrect.

00:03:52.439 --> 00:03:57.340
I was not - disinvited because I misinterpreted

00:03:57.340 --> 00:04:02.400
research or put forth decontextualized factoids.

00:04:03.659 --> 00:04:08.840
I was disinvited because the tone used in the

00:04:08.840 --> 00:04:12.379
dissemination of information was deemed to be,

00:04:12.379 --> 00:04:17.579
quote, fairly abrasive, unquote. This is rather

00:04:17.579 --> 00:04:24.110
telling, yes, fairly abrasive. But here's something

00:04:24.110 --> 00:04:29.129
that's really fairly abrasive. If I were not

00:04:29.129 --> 00:04:33.189
retiring in seven months, I'd be forced to go

00:04:33.189 --> 00:04:37.569
to a letters re -education camp. Here I'd be

00:04:37.569 --> 00:04:41.129
forced to listen to someone who's been specially

00:04:41.129 --> 00:04:43.790
trained with a letters training certificate.

00:04:44.870 --> 00:04:48.569
They'd lecture me about reading instruction.

00:04:49.870 --> 00:04:53.829
Now, I've been reading research and doing scholarly

00:04:53.829 --> 00:04:56.930
work related to reading instruction for over

00:04:56.930 --> 00:05:02.089
30 years. But since they're letters certified

00:05:02.089 --> 00:05:07.230
with training certificates who wear badges, I'd

00:05:07.230 --> 00:05:11.529
be forced to listen to them. And I'm sorry, is

00:05:11.529 --> 00:05:17.060
my tone abrasive here? How might I remove this

00:05:17.060 --> 00:05:19.959
abrasion so that I'm not disinvited to things?

00:05:21.279 --> 00:05:24.519
Is this why I don't get invited to birthday parties

00:05:24.519 --> 00:05:30.860
anymore? Is my tone more abrasive than the things

00:05:30.860 --> 00:05:35.040
Emily Hanford says? Is it more abrasive than

00:05:35.040 --> 00:05:38.899
the conveniently inaccurate statements and de

00:05:38.899 --> 00:05:43.110
-contextualized factoids? put out by Louisa Moats,

00:05:43.970 --> 00:05:47.730
Linnea Airy, Sally Schwartz, and Claude Goldenberg?

00:05:48.970 --> 00:05:53.649
Is it more abrasive than the tone used to inaccurately

00:05:53.649 --> 00:05:59.209
describe Lucy Calkins or Ken Goodman? Is it more

00:05:59.209 --> 00:06:03.730
abrasive than the state of Minnesota, forcing

00:06:03.730 --> 00:06:07.250
me to take any reference to the three -queuing

00:06:07.250 --> 00:06:13.480
system off my syllabus? At Minnesota State University,

00:06:14.259 --> 00:06:18.300
if certain terms are included in our syllabi,

00:06:19.180 --> 00:06:24.980
we risk accreditation. Now, the tone used to

00:06:24.980 --> 00:06:28.720
force us to comply may not be abrasive, but the

00:06:28.720 --> 00:06:33.279
resulting message certainly is. Pretty words

00:06:33.279 --> 00:06:37.500
that create a pleasant tone are used to threaten

00:06:37.500 --> 00:06:45.220
our accreditation. at least is mildly abrasive.

00:06:46.560 --> 00:06:51.240
Academic buzzwords. Yes, the term reeducation

00:06:51.240 --> 00:06:57.160
camp is a buzzword. It evokes an emotional response

00:06:57.160 --> 00:07:01.379
much like the stories, anecdotal evidence, and

00:07:01.379 --> 00:07:06.259
academic buzzwords used to convince state legislators

00:07:06.259 --> 00:07:11.550
to pass science of reading laws. The term is

00:07:11.550 --> 00:07:14.709
a reference to something that's been used by

00:07:14.709 --> 00:07:20.009
authoritarian regimes throughout history to indoctrinate

00:07:20.009 --> 00:07:24.589
perceived enemies of the state. And I think most

00:07:24.589 --> 00:07:28.009
people with a sixth grade education understand

00:07:28.009 --> 00:07:32.730
that this is a bit of purposeful exaggeration

00:07:32.730 --> 00:07:37.720
used to make a point. And the point is that the

00:07:37.720 --> 00:07:40.839
state of Minnesota has determined that I don't

00:07:40.839 --> 00:07:44.180
think the right way about reading instruction.

00:07:45.620 --> 00:07:48.779
Apparently, I don't believe the right things

00:07:48.779 --> 00:07:53.279
either. And if I weren't retiring, I'd be forced

00:07:53.279 --> 00:07:59.660
to endure 60 hours of letters training. But also

00:07:59.660 --> 00:08:02.980
classroom teachers in Minnesota are forced to

00:08:02.980 --> 00:08:06.240
spend 60 hours outside their normal teaching

00:08:06.240 --> 00:08:12.680
hours to get, quote, trained, unquote. Yes, it's

00:08:12.680 --> 00:08:16.860
an exaggerated comparison. Dr. Andy is to letters

00:08:16.860 --> 00:08:21.160
training as dissenters are to re -education camps

00:08:21.160 --> 00:08:27.339
in authoritarian regimes. Yes. But both letters

00:08:27.339 --> 00:08:31.509
training and re -education camps are examples

00:08:31.509 --> 00:08:35.049
of forced compliance that are used to produce

00:08:35.049 --> 00:08:39.509
right thinking and right behaviors. And I think

00:08:39.509 --> 00:08:42.809
this is an important point to try to get across.

00:08:44.070 --> 00:08:49.970
So is my tone abrasive? Well, I'm sure it is

00:08:49.970 --> 00:08:52.809
to those who don't want to hear what I have to

00:08:52.809 --> 00:08:58.309
say. Of course it feels abrasive if it conflicts

00:08:58.309 --> 00:09:02.509
with what you believe about things. As well,

00:09:02.769 --> 00:09:05.929
you will find my writing tone abrasive if it

00:09:05.929 --> 00:09:08.730
creates dissonance or threatens the black and

00:09:08.730 --> 00:09:11.529
white world that one has carefully constructed.

00:09:13.129 --> 00:09:18.190
But tell me this, riddle me this, Batman. How

00:09:18.190 --> 00:09:22.230
does one use pretty words to describe abrasive

00:09:22.230 --> 00:09:28.159
things? cognitive frameworks. The abrasiveness

00:09:28.159 --> 00:09:33.039
of a writing tone is determined largely by the

00:09:33.039 --> 00:09:37.860
cognitive framework held by the reader. Now a

00:09:37.860 --> 00:09:40.740
cognitive framework is the mentally constructed

00:09:40.740 --> 00:09:44.840
structures that guide individuals in interpreting

00:09:44.840 --> 00:09:49.820
the world. It becomes the lens through which

00:09:49.820 --> 00:09:55.250
the world is viewed and much like a theory, A

00:09:55.250 --> 00:09:58.389
cognitive framework is used to explain facts

00:09:58.389 --> 00:10:04.350
and understand phenomena. Some see my writing

00:10:04.350 --> 00:10:08.889
as abrasive and ill -informed. Others see my

00:10:08.889 --> 00:10:13.070
writing as non -abrasive and sometimes even insightful.

00:10:14.710 --> 00:10:20.690
Regardless of one's view, to silence, dismiss,

00:10:20.940 --> 00:10:25.220
or disinvite someone based on their perceived

00:10:25.220 --> 00:10:32.879
tone is, well, it's the science of reading. This

00:10:32.879 --> 00:10:35.620
has been The Reading Instruction Show. I am your

00:10:35.620 --> 00:10:37.559
host, Dr. Andy Johnson.