This is The Reading Instruction Show. I'm your
host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson. Topic of today's
show, dyslexia summits, disinvitation, and abrasiveness.
Now, a couple months ago, I recorded an online
interview for a dyslexia summit. I also put together
and recorded a short video presentation. These
were both. to be shown at a dyslexia summit.
I'd agreed to then be present online at the summit
for a live question and answer session. But I
discovered on the day of the summit that I was
disinvited. Imagine that. My invitation was rescinded,
withdrawn, taken away, revoked, recalled, annulled.
without so much as a disinviting word. No, it's
not really a big deal. I hadn't prepared a large
presentation and I didn't make travel plans,
but the fact remains I was disinvited. I was
first invited and then I was not. Disinvitations
are not an unexpected occurrence for those whose
views don't align with the current science of
reading view on things. And as I said, it's not
a big deal. So if it's not a big deal, why are
you writing about it? He asked. I'm writing because
it's illustrative of a larger trend. The stated
reason for my disinvitation was that the writing
tone used on some of my digital platforms is
quote, fairly abrasive when speaking about those
and other camps in the reading world unquote.
Abrasive tones and reading camps, both of these
need a bit of unpacking and exploring and explaining.
In this podcast, I'll be looking just at abrasive
writing tones, and in the next, I'll examine
reading camps. So let's take a look at abrasive
writing tones. First, a bit of context is necessary.
We live in a time when it has become acceptable
to attack those who have differing views on things.
Those who've been unable to sustain their arguments
regarding effective reading instruction have
resorted to distortion, mischaracterization,
and convenient mistruths to make their case.
They've tried to silence, belittle, demean, and
even disinvite those who disagree. Teachers and
administrators who do not fall in line with the
science of reading mandates have been bullied
and threatened. College professors are forced
to teach what they know is untrue. And teachers
are required to engage in what they know to be
educational malpractice. This, my friends, is
the context in which my tone was found to be,
quote, fairly abrasive, unquote. Force compliance.
To be clear, I was not disinvited because the
information I put forth was inaccurate or incorrect.
I was not - disinvited because I misinterpreted
research or put forth decontextualized factoids.
I was disinvited because the tone used in the
dissemination of information was deemed to be,
quote, fairly abrasive, unquote. This is rather
telling, yes, fairly abrasive. But here's something
that's really fairly abrasive. If I were not
retiring in seven months, I'd be forced to go
to a letters re -education camp. Here I'd be
forced to listen to someone who's been specially
trained with a letters training certificate.
They'd lecture me about reading instruction.
Now, I've been reading research and doing scholarly
work related to reading instruction for over
30 years. But since they're letters certified
with training certificates who wear badges, I'd
be forced to listen to them. And I'm sorry, is
my tone abrasive here? How might I remove this
abrasion so that I'm not disinvited to things?
Is this why I don't get invited to birthday parties
anymore? Is my tone more abrasive than the things
Emily Hanford says? Is it more abrasive than
the conveniently inaccurate statements and de
-contextualized factoids? put out by Louisa Moats,
Linnea Airy, Sally Schwartz, and Claude Goldenberg?
Is it more abrasive than the tone used to inaccurately
describe Lucy Calkins or Ken Goodman? Is it more
abrasive than the state of Minnesota, forcing
me to take any reference to the three -queuing
system off my syllabus? At Minnesota State University,
if certain terms are included in our syllabi,
we risk accreditation. Now, the tone used to
force us to comply may not be abrasive, but the
resulting message certainly is. Pretty words
that create a pleasant tone are used to threaten
our accreditation. at least is mildly abrasive.
Academic buzzwords. Yes, the term reeducation
camp is a buzzword. It evokes an emotional response
much like the stories, anecdotal evidence, and
academic buzzwords used to convince state legislators
to pass science of reading laws. The term is
a reference to something that's been used by
authoritarian regimes throughout history to indoctrinate
perceived enemies of the state. And I think most
people with a sixth grade education understand
that this is a bit of purposeful exaggeration
used to make a point. And the point is that the
state of Minnesota has determined that I don't
think the right way about reading instruction.
Apparently, I don't believe the right things
either. And if I weren't retiring, I'd be forced
to endure 60 hours of letters training. But also
classroom teachers in Minnesota are forced to
spend 60 hours outside their normal teaching
hours to get, quote, trained, unquote. Yes, it's
an exaggerated comparison. Dr. Andy is to letters
training as dissenters are to re -education camps
in authoritarian regimes. Yes. But both letters
training and re -education camps are examples
of forced compliance that are used to produce
right thinking and right behaviors. And I think
this is an important point to try to get across.
So is my tone abrasive? Well, I'm sure it is
to those who don't want to hear what I have to
say. Of course it feels abrasive if it conflicts
with what you believe about things. As well,
you will find my writing tone abrasive if it
creates dissonance or threatens the black and
white world that one has carefully constructed.
But tell me this, riddle me this, Batman. How
does one use pretty words to describe abrasive
things? cognitive frameworks. The abrasiveness
of a writing tone is determined largely by the
cognitive framework held by the reader. Now a
cognitive framework is the mentally constructed
structures that guide individuals in interpreting
the world. It becomes the lens through which
the world is viewed and much like a theory, A
cognitive framework is used to explain facts
and understand phenomena. Some see my writing
as abrasive and ill -informed. Others see my
writing as non -abrasive and sometimes even insightful.
Regardless of one's view, to silence, dismiss,
or disinvite someone based on their perceived
tone is, well, it's the science of reading. This
has been The Reading Instruction Show. I am your
host, Dr. Andy Johnson.