WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.000 This is The Reading Instruction Show. I am your 00:00:03.000 --> 00:00:08.779 host, Dr. Andy Johnson. Topic of today's show 00:00:08.779 --> 00:00:14.039 is called John Stossel, My Adventure in Television. 00:00:15.039 --> 00:00:19.500 Now on August 8th, 2025, I was sitting in my 00:00:19.500 --> 00:00:23.000 basement writing my next New York Times best 00:00:23.000 --> 00:00:26.179 -selling book about reading instruction when 00:00:26.179 --> 00:00:30.780 I got an email. Bing! and it said, Hi, Dr. Johnson, 00:00:31.019 --> 00:00:35.259 my name is Dan Stefano. Dan Stefano, Stefano, 00:00:35.380 --> 00:00:38.960 I'm a producer with John Stossel for Stossel 00:00:38.960 --> 00:00:42.259 TV. We're doing a story on the literacy crisis 00:00:42.259 --> 00:00:46.880 in America and it came across your advocacy for 00:00:46.880 --> 00:00:49.579 whole word reading instruction and would like 00:00:49.579 --> 00:00:53.460 to get your take on the subject. If you're interested, 00:00:54.039 --> 00:00:57.729 blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay? Now, I'm 00:00:57.729 --> 00:01:02.969 often very naive about things, but I'm not naive 00:01:02.969 --> 00:01:07.230 enough to think John Stasso really wanted my 00:01:07.230 --> 00:01:13.109 take, quote unquote, on anything. He didn't really 00:01:13.109 --> 00:01:16.909 want to understand the literacy crisis or anything 00:01:16.909 --> 00:01:21.750 related to literacy. He had no real interest 00:01:21.750 --> 00:01:26.700 in my thoughts on any issue. He was looking for 00:01:26.700 --> 00:01:32.099 good TV. And because I drink 15 plus cups of 00:01:32.099 --> 00:01:35.840 coffee a day, and I tend to be a bit over -excitable, 00:01:36.260 --> 00:01:41.719 I am good TV. And when I really get worked up, 00:01:41.819 --> 00:01:45.200 I wave my arms in the air and twitch a lot, and 00:01:45.200 --> 00:01:49.780 my voice goes up a couple octaves. Picture an 00:01:49.780 --> 00:01:53.859 over -caffeinated Barney Fife. Nip it, nip it. 00:01:53.920 --> 00:02:00.799 Nip it in the bud. Good TV. It was obvious from 00:02:00.799 --> 00:02:05.200 the message that the sender that Dan sent that 00:02:05.200 --> 00:02:08.539 Dan didn't know much about reading instruction. 00:02:08.740 --> 00:02:13.000 And this is not an uncommon occurrence for those 00:02:13.000 --> 00:02:15.919 entering into the science of reading discussion 00:02:15.919 --> 00:02:20.719 from the outside. Here is my very polite response 00:02:20.719 --> 00:02:25.500 to Dan. Hi, Dan. I'd be happy to do an interview, 00:02:25.759 --> 00:02:29.060 but it is not whole word reading instruction. 00:02:29.419 --> 00:02:33.340 This doesn't exist. I can talk about whole language, 00:02:33.900 --> 00:02:37.300 meaning -based instruction, or balanced literacy. 00:02:37.719 --> 00:02:40.900 I don't know of anybody who currently advocates 00:02:40.900 --> 00:02:44.879 whole word instruction. Okay, blah, blah, blah, 00:02:44.879 --> 00:02:49.219 blah, blah. So, whole word instruction. Let's 00:02:49.219 --> 00:02:53.960 look at this. I... I'm not quite sure what whole 00:02:53.960 --> 00:02:58.159 word reading instruction is, and I'm an alleged 00:02:58.159 --> 00:03:02.419 reading expert. John Stossel also brought this 00:03:02.419 --> 00:03:06.819 up during the interview, so let me try to clarify. 00:03:07.639 --> 00:03:12.539 First, the look -say approach. In the early 60s, 00:03:12.740 --> 00:03:16.199 there was something called the look -say approach, 00:03:16.800 --> 00:03:20.719 and this That may have been the reference that 00:03:20.719 --> 00:03:25.960 Dan Stefano was making. Now here, children were 00:03:25.960 --> 00:03:30.020 taught to read by having them recognize entire 00:03:30.020 --> 00:03:35.000 words as single units, instead of sounding out 00:03:35.000 --> 00:03:39.560 the individual letters. Common words were introduced, 00:03:40.219 --> 00:03:43.599 then repeated many times in simple sentences 00:03:43.599 --> 00:03:48.099 using what's called a controlled vocabulary. 00:03:49.560 --> 00:03:52.439 The Dick and Jane series, published by Scott 00:03:52.439 --> 00:03:58.800 Forsman and Company from 1930 to 1965, was used 00:03:58.800 --> 00:04:04.409 for this. And you can see see some of the scintillating 00:04:04.409 --> 00:04:07.969 dialogue from these posts you can listen to it 00:04:07.969 --> 00:04:13.650 here it is look dick look jane see baby see see 00:04:13.650 --> 00:04:19.769 oh oh oh dick look see see baby there was a lot 00:04:19.769 --> 00:04:24.209 of looking and seeing back then and this was 00:04:24.209 --> 00:04:29.110 my reading instruction back in 1963 that's the 00:04:29.110 --> 00:04:34.879 look -say approach now Sight words. There are 00:04:34.879 --> 00:04:39.540 these things called sight words. And I tried 00:04:39.540 --> 00:04:43.939 to explain this during the interview. Sight words 00:04:43.939 --> 00:04:47.819 are the words that students recognize instantly 00:04:47.819 --> 00:04:53.379 on sight without having to use letter cues, word 00:04:53.379 --> 00:04:58.470 parts, or context clues. These words can be found 00:04:58.470 --> 00:05:01.910 on lists of most common words or most frequent 00:05:01.910 --> 00:05:05.029 words that include the 100 to 200 words that 00:05:05.029 --> 00:05:09.910 students encounter most often in print. And these 00:05:09.910 --> 00:05:14.490 are comprised mostly of function words. That 00:05:14.490 --> 00:05:17.769 is, they have little or no lexical meaning. They're 00:05:17.769 --> 00:05:21.569 things such as pronouns and prepositions. and 00:05:21.569 --> 00:05:24.930 instead they express a grammatical or a structural 00:05:24.930 --> 00:05:28.910 relation with other words. There are several 00:05:28.910 --> 00:05:33.730 most common word lists. Dolsch, Frey, and Zeno 00:05:33.730 --> 00:05:37.829 are the most common, and they're all relatively 00:05:37.829 --> 00:05:41.850 similar. It doesn't really matter which one you 00:05:41.850 --> 00:05:45.370 use. I tend to use the Zeno word list, and these 00:05:45.370 --> 00:05:50.959 are 107. words that students will encounter most 00:05:50.959 --> 00:05:55.959 often in text. Now, attention to sight words 00:05:55.959 --> 00:06:00.779 should be part of a reading or reading instruction 00:06:00.779 --> 00:06:04.480 for beginning readers. And three reasons for 00:06:04.480 --> 00:06:07.839 this, for attending to sight words. First, recognizing 00:06:07.839 --> 00:06:12.540 words instantly frees up cognitive space that 00:06:12.540 --> 00:06:17.709 can be allocated to creating meaning. Second, 00:06:18.670 --> 00:06:23.250 words stored in long -term memory can be used 00:06:23.250 --> 00:06:26.649 to help students recognize and identify words 00:06:26.649 --> 00:06:31.310 in print with similar letter patterns. And third, 00:06:31.769 --> 00:06:34.750 having a large store of sight words enhances 00:06:34.750 --> 00:06:40.389 reading fluency. Whole language! Whole language 00:06:40.389 --> 00:06:45.050 is a language learning theory! Both whole language 00:06:45.050 --> 00:06:50.389 and whole word have the word whole in them, but 00:06:50.389 --> 00:06:53.410 that's the only similarity. It has nothing to 00:06:53.410 --> 00:06:57.649 do with whole word reading. So, whole word reading 00:06:57.649 --> 00:07:02.129 instruction. Whole word reading instruction is 00:07:02.129 --> 00:07:07.850 not something that I or anybody that I know advocates. 00:07:08.519 --> 00:07:13.339 There is no significant whole -word reading instruction 00:07:13.339 --> 00:07:18.899 occurring today. It doesn't exist. Oh, maybe 00:07:18.899 --> 00:07:21.399 there are seven or eight around the country someplace. 00:07:21.839 --> 00:07:25.339 But nonetheless, John Stossel still wanted my 00:07:25.339 --> 00:07:29.560 take on something because I was contacted two 00:07:29.560 --> 00:07:33.160 months later and flown out to New York City. 00:07:34.720 --> 00:07:38.329 So... I want to say up front, I was treated very 00:07:38.329 --> 00:07:42.649 respectfully by John Stossel, Dan DeStefano, 00:07:43.110 --> 00:07:46.829 and all the staff. And even though the interview 00:07:46.829 --> 00:07:49.750 was designed to be one of those gotcha interviews, 00:07:50.250 --> 00:07:53.990 I found John and his staff to be respectful during 00:07:53.990 --> 00:07:57.290 the questioning in that he allowed me to answer 00:07:57.290 --> 00:08:01.579 the questions. And it shows that you can be against 00:08:01.579 --> 00:08:06.740 something, you can disagree vehemently, and you 00:08:06.740 --> 00:08:10.019 can even have an interview designed to highlight 00:08:10.019 --> 00:08:14.100 the flaws or inconsistencies of another. But 00:08:14.100 --> 00:08:18.600 you don't have to be disrespectful. So John or 00:08:18.600 --> 00:08:22.439 Dan, if you hear this, thank you for that. Thus 00:08:22.439 --> 00:08:27.879 said, I have no doubt that the interview will 00:08:27.879 --> 00:08:31.899 go through some creative edits, and that I'll 00:08:31.899 --> 00:08:39.179 be portrayed in a less than stellar light. And 00:08:39.179 --> 00:08:43.080 I know there will be some convenient, inaccurate 00:08:43.080 --> 00:08:47.580 things said before or after the interview, and 00:08:47.580 --> 00:08:54.000 these things will make me look misguided or even 00:08:54.000 --> 00:08:59.889 foolish. I knew this going in. That's how the 00:08:59.889 --> 00:09:04.870 game is played. And I'm okay with this for two 00:09:04.870 --> 00:09:09.289 reasons. First, it gives me something to write 00:09:09.289 --> 00:09:13.309 about. And oddly, I seem to have no shortage 00:09:13.309 --> 00:09:16.899 of things to write about lately. And second, 00:09:17.139 --> 00:09:21.500 this is illustrative of what's occurring on a 00:09:21.500 --> 00:09:25.799 larger level with Emily Hanford and all the Hanford 00:09:25.799 --> 00:09:30.860 wannabes. The purpose of these kinds of interviews 00:09:30.860 --> 00:09:35.820 is not to transmit information or to understand 00:09:35.820 --> 00:09:41.139 the issues. Rather, it's to elicit an emotional 00:09:41.139 --> 00:09:45.360 reaction. This, in turn, leads to substantial 00:09:45.360 --> 00:09:50.259 speaking fees and other opportunities. And by 00:09:50.259 --> 00:09:53.139 the way, I don't think Emily Hanford will be 00:09:53.139 --> 00:09:56.980 greatly impacted by cuts in the SNAP program. 00:09:59.000 --> 00:10:02.500 A libertarian, John Stossel is described online 00:10:02.500 --> 00:10:06.360 as an American libertarian television presenter, 00:10:06.659 --> 00:10:09.809 author, consumer, journalist, political activist, 00:10:10.230 --> 00:10:13.129 and pundit. I always wondered what a pundit is. 00:10:13.169 --> 00:10:15.850 How do you get to be a pundit? Is there a pundit 00:10:15.850 --> 00:10:19.750 school someplace? He has a podcast called The 00:10:19.750 --> 00:10:22.730 John Stossel Interviews, and I'm guessing this 00:10:22.730 --> 00:10:25.389 is where an edited version of our discussion 00:10:25.389 --> 00:10:31.899 will appear. Now, to get a sense of John Stossel's 00:10:31.899 --> 00:10:36.879 speaking fees, I contacted LAI Speakers, this 00:10:36.879 --> 00:10:40.340 is Leading Authorities, Inc. This is a speaking 00:10:40.340 --> 00:10:43.639 bureau, and I told the person that I was with 00:10:43.639 --> 00:10:47.980 a group called Liberty Minnesota, which is true, 00:10:48.159 --> 00:10:50.519 I am with the group, there are like two of us, 00:10:50.799 --> 00:10:53.379 and was interested in having John Stossel do 00:10:53.379 --> 00:10:58.090 a keynote address. They sent me a quote which 00:10:58.090 --> 00:11:04.870 was 75k! And this included expenses and first 00:11:04.870 --> 00:11:09.950 -class air travel. Now, I realized two things. 00:11:10.250 --> 00:11:14.389 First, making good TV is certainly more lucrative 00:11:14.389 --> 00:11:19.250 than being a literacy professor. How silly of 00:11:19.250 --> 00:11:23.779 me! to spend five years earning my PhD and 30 00:11:23.779 --> 00:11:27.279 years teaching and doing scholarly work, when 00:11:27.279 --> 00:11:31.399 I could have been making good TV and doing keynotes 00:11:31.399 --> 00:11:36.419 for 75k a pop, and secondly I need to ask for 00:11:36.419 --> 00:11:39.980 better airline seats next time. When they flew 00:11:39.980 --> 00:11:43.940 me out I was literally in the very last row of 00:11:43.940 --> 00:11:49.769 the airplane. So I bring up his 75k speaking 00:11:49.769 --> 00:11:55.009 feed, not because I think it's a bad thing. For 00:11:55.009 --> 00:11:59.429 75k, I give you a keynote speech and dance like 00:11:59.429 --> 00:12:03.830 a chicken. I bring it up because everything in 00:12:03.830 --> 00:12:07.769 this science of reading conversation must be 00:12:07.769 --> 00:12:12.720 understood in the context of money. Money, whether 00:12:12.720 --> 00:12:17.379 received directly or indirectly, is used to influence 00:12:17.379 --> 00:12:23.159 reading policy. Those with more money dictate 00:12:23.159 --> 00:12:27.440 what information is presented, how it's interpreted, 00:12:27.940 --> 00:12:33.240 and how things are perceived. Those with less 00:12:33.240 --> 00:12:38.379 money are silenced. So the way to get heard is 00:12:38.379 --> 00:12:45.639 really quite simple. more money. Now let's take 00:12:45.639 --> 00:12:49.700 a look at the interview. In the next couple podcasts, 00:12:50.100 --> 00:12:52.480 I'll be highlighting different parts of this 00:12:52.480 --> 00:12:56.100 interview. Right now I'm doing this from memory. 00:12:56.840 --> 00:12:59.840 When I see the final interview product, I'll 00:12:59.840 --> 00:13:04.559 be able to respond more specifically. But confirmation, 00:13:05.179 --> 00:13:10.139 bias, and data resistance. It was clear that 00:13:10.139 --> 00:13:13.679 his staff did some background research to prepare 00:13:13.679 --> 00:13:17.519 for the interview. It was clear as well that 00:13:17.519 --> 00:13:21.320 the staff had a hardy case of confirmation bias. 00:13:22.259 --> 00:13:26.399 This occurs when someone begins with strong beliefs 00:13:26.399 --> 00:13:30.960 and sees only information that confirms with 00:13:30.960 --> 00:13:35.120 their beliefs. In other words, they see what 00:13:35.120 --> 00:13:37.320 they're looking for and they don't see what they're 00:13:37.320 --> 00:13:41.500 not looking for. In this case, they were looking 00:13:41.500 --> 00:13:45.220 for data to show how wrong I was about reading 00:13:45.220 --> 00:13:49.580 instruction. And this made them data resistant 00:13:49.580 --> 00:13:52.980 to any data that might have showed how right 00:13:52.980 --> 00:13:58.620 I was about reading instruction. So, a false 00:13:58.620 --> 00:14:02.639 literacy crisis. John Stossel kept insisting, 00:14:02.879 --> 00:14:07.379 that there was a literacy crisis, and he would 00:14:07.379 --> 00:14:11.340 not be convinced otherwise. After all, he had 00:14:11.340 --> 00:14:14.379 a chart in front of him showing such a thing. 00:14:15.039 --> 00:14:18.340 And I tried explaining the difference between 00:14:18.340 --> 00:14:21.340 norm reference and criterion reference tests. 00:14:22.460 --> 00:14:26.039 Norm reference tests compare students' test scores 00:14:26.039 --> 00:14:32.149 to a normal population. Test scores of a large 00:14:32.149 --> 00:14:34.950 representative sample of students are collected 00:14:34.950 --> 00:14:38.970 so that comparisons can be made with students 00:14:38.970 --> 00:14:44.769 at similar grade levels. If it's a normal population, 00:14:45.590 --> 00:14:50.440 you get the familiar bell -shaped curve. For 00:14:50.440 --> 00:14:54.000 example, if Mary was in 3rd grade and her reading 00:14:54.000 --> 00:14:57.740 scores were at the 80th percentile, it would 00:14:57.740 --> 00:15:01.659 mean that she scored higher than 80 % of all 00:15:01.659 --> 00:15:06.460 3rd grade students. And you would know, with 00:15:06.460 --> 00:15:11.039 absolute mathematical precision, just how far 00:15:11.039 --> 00:15:16.259 she was away from average. In this case, Mary 00:15:16.259 --> 00:15:22.090 was 30%. away from average, which is the 50th 00:15:22.090 --> 00:15:25.409 percentile. And she was on the good side of that. 00:15:27.070 --> 00:15:30.330 Now, if you used a norm reference test with a 00:15:30.330 --> 00:15:34.710 bell -shaped curve, by definition, 50 % are above 00:15:34.710 --> 00:15:39.230 the median average and 50 % are below the median 00:15:39.230 --> 00:15:42.970 average. But that's far different from saying 00:15:42.970 --> 00:15:46.750 that 50 % of students are reading below average 00:15:46.750 --> 00:15:53.269 or reading below grade level. Instead, 50 % read 00:15:53.269 --> 00:15:58.789 below the median average, and this is called 00:15:58.789 --> 00:16:03.909 normal and is to be expected in a normal population. 00:16:05.320 --> 00:16:08.639 Now the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 00:16:08.899 --> 00:16:11.899 NAEP, is part of the U .S. Department of Education. 00:16:12.539 --> 00:16:16.240 They've been putting out test data since 1971, 00:16:16.659 --> 00:16:20.100 and you can visit their website to get the particulars. 00:16:20.960 --> 00:16:24.279 Their norm reference tests are given to students 00:16:24.279 --> 00:16:29.710 in 4th, 8th, and 12th grade. Test scores are 00:16:29.710 --> 00:16:32.970 broken down by states and subjects as well as 00:16:32.970 --> 00:16:36.570 by various subgroups such as race, ethnicity, 00:16:37.509 --> 00:16:42.039 SES, gender, and school type. And since the test 00:16:42.039 --> 00:16:46.460 is the same, the same test is used, comparisons 00:16:46.460 --> 00:16:50.279 can be made over time, as well as between states 00:16:50.279 --> 00:16:55.779 and among subgroups. And these are useful in 00:16:55.779 --> 00:17:00.779 tracking national trends, but not for assigning 00:17:00.779 --> 00:17:05.289 causality. Correlation does not infer causation. 00:17:05.609 --> 00:17:08.730 If a test score goes down, you cannot say, ah, 00:17:08.829 --> 00:17:12.509 it's because of that. You can't do that. But 00:17:12.509 --> 00:17:17.089 if there were a literacy crisis, which there 00:17:17.089 --> 00:17:22.990 is not, NAEP data would show a graph with the 00:17:22.990 --> 00:17:27.289 scores that looked like a ski hill going down, 00:17:27.849 --> 00:17:31.450 or even a slight hill constantly going down. 00:17:31.819 --> 00:17:36.880 It would not look like how they are, which is 00:17:36.880 --> 00:17:43.180 from 1971 until 2020, scores were consistent 00:17:43.180 --> 00:17:46.619 or maybe even rising a little bit. Yes, there 00:17:46.619 --> 00:17:50.119 was the natural fluxation of scores, absolutely, 00:17:50.420 --> 00:17:55.380 but there simply is no reading crisis. And the 00:17:55.380 --> 00:17:58.019 question asked, and then John Stossel asked this, 00:17:58.660 --> 00:18:02.569 well, how come they're not getting better? That's 00:18:02.569 --> 00:18:06.009 not the way it works, John. That's not the way 00:18:06.009 --> 00:18:12.150 they work. So if there's an imaginary test and 00:18:12.150 --> 00:18:15.549 the scores were 500, and that's the score range, 00:18:16.069 --> 00:18:18.450 you would expect these scores to continually 00:18:18.450 --> 00:18:23.089 be climbing all the time? That's just not the 00:18:23.089 --> 00:18:25.890 way it works. Now, criterion reference tests. 00:18:26.319 --> 00:18:29.900 With criterion reference tests, students are 00:18:29.900 --> 00:18:33.640 not compared to a normal population or even an 00:18:33.640 --> 00:18:36.880 abnormal population. They're compared to a set 00:18:36.880 --> 00:18:41.259 of criteria that somebody has arbitrarily defined. 00:18:42.319 --> 00:18:47.220 And these criteria are aspirational, not mathematical. 00:18:48.339 --> 00:18:51.880 Meaning they represent what a group of people 00:18:51.880 --> 00:18:55.400 has decided that students at each grade level 00:18:55.849 --> 00:19:01.269 should be able to know or do. In other words, 00:19:01.289 --> 00:19:05.430 they're based on I -THINK -isms. I think third 00:19:05.430 --> 00:19:08.089 graders should know this and fourth graders should 00:19:08.089 --> 00:19:12.470 know that. And this means that students' achievement 00:19:12.470 --> 00:19:18.009 can easily go up or down simply by changing aspirations, 00:19:18.670 --> 00:19:24.299 categories, or test content. Thus, you cannot 00:19:24.299 --> 00:19:27.079 compare the results from a criterion reference 00:19:27.079 --> 00:19:30.619 exam in one state with the results from a criterion 00:19:30.619 --> 00:19:34.220 reference test in another state. Two different 00:19:34.220 --> 00:19:37.440 tests, two different states, two different criteria, 00:19:37.839 --> 00:19:40.599 two different measures, two different populations. 00:19:41.940 --> 00:19:44.500 And you cannot compare the results of criterion 00:19:44.500 --> 00:19:48.180 reference tests over time if the tests differ, 00:19:48.339 --> 00:19:52.319 and they usually do. They change. Okay, this 00:19:52.319 --> 00:19:55.920 has been the end of part one. I will give you 00:19:55.920 --> 00:20:00.119 some more parts of the John Stossel interview 00:20:00.119 --> 00:20:03.759 later. This has been Andy Johnson and this has 00:20:03.759 --> 00:20:05.380 been The Reading Instruction Show.