WEBVTT 00:00:02.020 --> 00:00:05.740 Greetings, I'm Andy Johnson. This presentation 00:00:05.740 --> 00:00:08.820 is called Letters, Science of Reading Research 00:00:08.820 --> 00:00:13.660 Standards and Baloney. So let's get to it. By 00:00:13.660 --> 00:00:16.300 the way, you can find handouts and other stuff 00:00:16.300 --> 00:00:19.329 if you go to my sub stack. go to Substack and 00:00:19.329 --> 00:00:22.129 press in the reading instruction show. You'll 00:00:22.129 --> 00:00:24.469 find a bunch of stuff related there. This is 00:00:24.469 --> 00:00:27.050 a free Substack. I don't charge for subscriptions. 00:00:27.170 --> 00:00:29.769 Everything there is free. I have videos and writing 00:00:29.769 --> 00:00:32.630 and whatnot. I also have a lot of people ask 00:00:32.630 --> 00:00:36.189 me about writing, how to teach writing. Writing 00:00:36.189 --> 00:00:40.469 is one of the most under -taught skills in reading. 00:00:40.570 --> 00:00:44.189 So I have lots of stuff there taken from my book, 00:00:44.310 --> 00:00:47.469 Being and Becoming, Teachers of Writers. And 00:00:47.469 --> 00:00:50.490 like the rest of America, 98 % of you anyway, 00:00:50.509 --> 00:00:55.390 I do have a podcast. So let's get down to it. 00:00:55.969 --> 00:00:59.070 Context. The context in which things are found 00:00:59.070 --> 00:01:02.710 matter. Whether you're looking at words, understanding 00:01:02.710 --> 00:01:06.930 sentences, making sense of data, research, phenomena, 00:01:07.909 --> 00:01:10.569 understanding your students or the five core 00:01:10.569 --> 00:01:14.170 skills, making sense of Orton Gillingham and 00:01:14.170 --> 00:01:18.219 the science of reading, and in this case, evaluating 00:01:18.219 --> 00:01:22.939 letters professional development. But first of 00:01:22.939 --> 00:01:25.180 all, let's start with the illusion of crisis 00:01:25.180 --> 00:01:30.299 context helps us understand that as well. There 00:01:30.299 --> 00:01:35.879 is not a reading achievement crisis in the United 00:01:35.879 --> 00:01:39.700 States of America, no matter what the media tells 00:01:39.700 --> 00:01:44.219 you. National Assessment of Educational Progress, 00:01:44.500 --> 00:01:48.299 NAEP, part of the US Department of Education, 00:01:48.680 --> 00:01:52.459 puts out test scores every two years on reading 00:01:52.459 --> 00:01:55.640 math, science, and other things. According to 00:01:55.640 --> 00:01:59.560 Rinke and Ruby and Risco, there is no irrefutable 00:01:59.560 --> 00:02:02.640 evidence that we are experiencing a national 00:02:02.640 --> 00:02:07.439 literacy crisis. And science of things usually 00:02:07.439 --> 00:02:11.280 require evidence to come to conclusions about 00:02:11.280 --> 00:02:17.900 things. A crisis would look like that, or perhaps 00:02:17.900 --> 00:02:24.340 like that. It would not look like that. These 00:02:24.340 --> 00:02:26.979 are average reading scores for fourth graders 00:02:26.979 --> 00:02:32.120 starting in 71 to 20, or second graders and fourth 00:02:32.120 --> 00:02:35.860 graders 71 to 20. We'll look at some updated 00:02:35.860 --> 00:02:40.650 ones in a bit. there has been no statistically 00:02:40.650 --> 00:02:48.090 significant difference from 2013 to 2020. Yes, 00:02:48.310 --> 00:02:53.110 there was the COVID dip and we have natural fluctuations 00:02:53.110 --> 00:02:56.909 of scores as we would expect, but we're at the 00:02:56.909 --> 00:02:59.270 same place as we were in three and about the 00:02:59.270 --> 00:03:04.360 same place we were in nine. Okay, same with eighth 00:03:04.360 --> 00:03:07.379 grade. No statistically significant difference 00:03:07.379 --> 00:03:18.860 from 2012 to 2020, 2008, 2004. Now, to understand 00:03:18.860 --> 00:03:23.840 NAEP, they decided to come up with three levels 00:03:23.840 --> 00:03:26.520 or categories. They said, well, scores aren't 00:03:26.520 --> 00:03:29.400 bad enough. We need to find a way to make them 00:03:29.400 --> 00:03:33.060 bad so we can create this crisis. So they came 00:03:33.060 --> 00:03:37.340 up with the categories basic, proficient, and 00:03:37.340 --> 00:03:41.680 advanced. What did Ruby, Rinkeen, and Risco say? 00:03:41.800 --> 00:03:45.120 Rinkeen, Ruby, and Risco. Scores used to define 00:03:45.120 --> 00:03:48.960 these categories were arbitrarily set by a small 00:03:48.960 --> 00:03:52.500 group of handpicked political appointed experts 00:03:52.500 --> 00:03:57.139 against the recommendations of psychometricians 00:03:57.139 --> 00:04:00.439 who had been contracted to advise the department. 00:04:04.400 --> 00:04:11.240 Categories, levels, and contents. These are arbitrarily 00:04:11.240 --> 00:04:14.960 or were arbitrarily defined. Group of people 00:04:14.960 --> 00:04:17.220 got together and said, hmm, I think we'll call 00:04:17.220 --> 00:04:20.560 that. Now let's put this in a bit of context. 00:04:20.660 --> 00:04:23.720 Again, here is the national average. This is 00:04:23.720 --> 00:04:27.120 for fourth graders. And they give us these percentages, 00:04:27.339 --> 00:04:30.350 these percentile rankings, by the way. 10th, 00:04:30.350 --> 00:04:35.509 25th, 75th, 90th, as a way to disaggregate or 00:04:35.509 --> 00:04:37.930 pull out little bits of score so you can make 00:04:37.930 --> 00:04:41.930 a case for almost anything. You can say, the 00:04:41.930 --> 00:04:46.709 scores of poor readers are going down. Or if 00:04:46.709 --> 00:04:49.269 they went up, you can say, the number of poor 00:04:49.269 --> 00:04:53.149 readers is going up. Whatever. Here's the thing. 00:04:53.420 --> 00:05:00.139 92. This was the national average, so they defined 00:05:00.139 --> 00:05:06.879 basic as just below average and proficient as 00:05:06.879 --> 00:05:10.639 slightly above average. Why is that problematic? 00:05:11.040 --> 00:05:16.480 Because, wait for it, by definition at least 00:05:16.480 --> 00:05:20.939 40 % of the population would be reading below 00:05:20.939 --> 00:05:25.040 the basic level. Half would be reading below 00:05:25.040 --> 00:05:32.240 average and only about 60%. Only 60 % would be 00:05:32.240 --> 00:05:35.779 below the proficient level and only 40 % would 00:05:35.779 --> 00:05:39.019 be above, at or above the proficiency level. 00:05:39.500 --> 00:05:43.319 You see how they set that up to create the illusion. 00:05:43.839 --> 00:05:48.259 Same with eighth graders. These are aspirational, 00:05:48.480 --> 00:05:52.040 not mathematical average. just below average, 00:05:52.279 --> 00:06:00.959 just above average. Walton said proficiency levels 00:06:00.959 --> 00:06:06.259 should be interpreted with extreme caution, and 00:06:06.259 --> 00:06:09.019 the National Center, their own website, provided 00:06:09.019 --> 00:06:13.259 three reasons. These are aspirational, not mathematical, 00:06:13.379 --> 00:06:16.600 these levels, they're being used on a trial basis, 00:06:16.939 --> 00:06:21.110 so said their website. And further evidence is 00:06:21.110 --> 00:06:24.009 needed to determine if these levels are reasonable, 00:06:24.430 --> 00:06:29.170 valid, and informative. Yet there we go. And 00:06:29.170 --> 00:06:31.709 we must differentiate between norm -referenced 00:06:31.709 --> 00:06:34.910 and criterion -referenced tests. State tests 00:06:34.910 --> 00:06:38.550 tend to be criterion -referenced. Group of people 00:06:38.550 --> 00:06:40.850 got together and said, I think second graders 00:06:40.850 --> 00:06:43.550 should know that, third graders this, fourth 00:06:43.550 --> 00:06:47.110 graders this. So they established a criterion. 00:06:47.399 --> 00:06:51.839 an arbitrarily defined criterion at each grade 00:06:51.839 --> 00:06:55.899 level. They got together. But who decided the 00:06:55.899 --> 00:07:00.220 content? Who decided what's basic, proficient, 00:07:00.519 --> 00:07:05.899 et cetera? All right, let's look at letters and 00:07:05.899 --> 00:07:11.980 the Mississippi miracle. It's a miracle. Notice 00:07:11.980 --> 00:07:15.660 when states pass their legislation. Here's the 00:07:15.660 --> 00:07:20.360 miracle happening in 2013. And you see all this 00:07:20.360 --> 00:07:25.100 legislation passed. So in the next couple years, 00:07:25.500 --> 00:07:28.839 we should expect to see miracles happening all 00:07:28.839 --> 00:07:34.529 over the country. Absolutely. Now, Senator Chamberlain, 00:07:34.769 --> 00:07:38.089 the state senator here in Minnesota, he got a 00:07:38.089 --> 00:07:41.029 bill passed. But you know, Senator Chamberlain 00:07:41.029 --> 00:07:44.370 and then the Reid Act sponsored by Heather Ellison 00:07:44.370 --> 00:07:48.649 have been drinking the letters too late. The 00:07:48.649 --> 00:07:52.550 lobbyists got to know they don't give them money, 00:07:52.949 --> 00:07:56.129 but they lobby and they lobby and they lobby. 00:07:56.810 --> 00:08:03.110 This is what Chamberlain said. Mississippi, is 00:08:03.110 --> 00:08:06.509 outperforming Minnesota in reading game scores 00:08:06.509 --> 00:08:11.009 due to their use of letters. Oh, how humiliating. 00:08:11.170 --> 00:08:15.009 Mississippi is beating Minnesota. And he made 00:08:15.009 --> 00:08:20.050 the causal, the causal link. He said it's due 00:08:20.050 --> 00:08:23.129 to letters. Well, that's not really scientific 00:08:23.129 --> 00:08:27.209 thinking. Randomly assigning causality, I think 00:08:27.209 --> 00:08:32.210 is due to that. Okay, so his bill appropriated 00:08:32.210 --> 00:08:35.690 30 million. Edelson's bill would later appropriate 00:08:35.690 --> 00:08:39.029 100 million. All right, to make sure all teachers 00:08:39.029 --> 00:08:43.649 are trained with letters. Outperforming Minnesota 00:08:43.649 --> 00:08:46.929 in reading gain scores. Why is that a silly, 00:08:46.929 --> 00:08:53.350 silly idea? You can't compare gain scores. Here's 00:08:53.350 --> 00:08:57.129 Louisiana, Mississippi, Hawaii. And I've had 00:08:57.129 --> 00:09:00.850 people that say, look at this. Alabama has higher 00:09:00.850 --> 00:09:03.529 gain scores than Delaware. Therefore, we have 00:09:03.529 --> 00:09:08.649 to do what Alabama is doing. Here's the thing 00:09:08.649 --> 00:09:12.149 about gain scores. If you start low and you gain 00:09:12.149 --> 00:09:15.090 a little, you're going to have a pretty high 00:09:15.090 --> 00:09:18.190 gain score than if you start high and fluctuate 00:09:18.190 --> 00:09:22.309 a little. This does not mean that this is doing 00:09:22.309 --> 00:09:27.039 something magical. I went on the John Stossel 00:09:27.039 --> 00:09:29.279 show. He interviewed me. It wasn't an interview. 00:09:29.539 --> 00:09:32.000 He just wanted little bits to create a collage. 00:09:32.039 --> 00:09:34.340 And he's been drinking the Kool -Aid as well. 00:09:34.919 --> 00:09:39.259 He tried this gotcha thing. He had this graph 00:09:39.259 --> 00:09:42.639 out here comparing gain scores and said, look 00:09:42.639 --> 00:09:47.379 at Minnesota. They're way here. And look at Mississippi. 00:09:47.759 --> 00:09:50.580 Look at those gain scores, he said. And I tried 00:09:50.580 --> 00:09:54.529 to explain to him and I did. My explanation was 00:09:54.529 --> 00:09:57.129 left on the cutting floor of that interview, 00:09:57.309 --> 00:10:00.450 sadly. But here's the thing, Mississippi has 00:10:00.450 --> 00:10:05.710 never scored above Minnesota. Fourth grade, Mississippi, 00:10:05.750 --> 00:10:10.970 Minnesota, all right. Our Minnesota Department 00:10:10.970 --> 00:10:14.129 of Education are Kool -Aid drinkers as well. 00:10:14.429 --> 00:10:20.210 Mmm, tasty. This is what they put in their latest 00:10:20.210 --> 00:10:24.169 missive. In accordance with the Read Act, all 00:10:24.169 --> 00:10:27.669 phase one educators are required. That means 00:10:27.669 --> 00:10:32.090 they must, they must have approved professional 00:10:32.090 --> 00:10:36.149 development training and they approved it. How 00:10:36.149 --> 00:10:38.470 many research articles do you think these Kool 00:10:38.470 --> 00:10:43.610 -Aid drinkers have read in their lives? If I 00:10:43.610 --> 00:10:46.029 were not to retire, and I'm going to retire in 00:10:46.029 --> 00:10:49.370 three months just from university life, just 00:10:49.370 --> 00:10:53.159 like the guy in clockwork orange whose eyes were 00:10:53.159 --> 00:10:55.879 held open so he had to watch horrible things, 00:10:56.379 --> 00:11:00.919 I would have to do mandatory letters training. 00:11:01.080 --> 00:11:05.059 Here I am. It would be a re -education camp for 00:11:05.059 --> 00:11:08.580 me. This is required of people. Someone would 00:11:08.580 --> 00:11:12.779 be telling me about reading instruction. And 00:11:12.779 --> 00:11:15.379 the Minnesota Department of Education has become 00:11:15.379 --> 00:11:19.470 an infomercial for Lexia Learning. Look at all 00:11:19.470 --> 00:11:22.809 this stuff. This could have been written by Lexia 00:11:22.809 --> 00:11:26.169 Learning. Letters, rigorous professional development, 00:11:27.470 --> 00:11:31.330 explicit systematic sequential instruction, foundational 00:11:31.330 --> 00:11:36.370 skills. Really interesting. And look at the numbers. 00:11:36.470 --> 00:11:39.789 It's got numbers. Hello, everybody. Numbers. 00:11:39.950 --> 00:11:45.940 It must be good. And look. at the fancy graphs. 00:11:46.100 --> 00:11:48.200 This is the Minnesota Department of Education 00:11:48.200 --> 00:11:53.039 website, taking stuff directly from Voyager Sopris, 00:11:53.139 --> 00:11:56.779 which is part of Cambrian, which is part of LexiAlerti. 00:11:57.940 --> 00:12:02.500 Okay. Graphs do not make a thing more real. The 00:12:02.500 --> 00:12:06.299 three questions we should ask of every program 00:12:06.440 --> 00:12:10.100 policy or approach? Is there research to show 00:12:10.100 --> 00:12:13.200 that it improves students' reading achievement, 00:12:13.639 --> 00:12:16.700 that it improves teachers' ability to teach reading, 00:12:16.820 --> 00:12:19.879 or that it's more effective when compared to 00:12:19.879 --> 00:12:23.399 similar things? That research has not been forthcoming 00:12:23.399 --> 00:12:28.759 for letters or for Orton Dillingham. Why are 00:12:28.759 --> 00:12:33.500 they given a free pass? How can you be a science 00:12:33.500 --> 00:12:38.500 of anything? if you ignore basic science. Hmm. 00:12:39.179 --> 00:12:42.159 Public education should not be an ATM machine 00:12:42.159 --> 00:12:47.320 for the profiteers. To illustrate the Mississippi 00:12:47.320 --> 00:12:51.399 miracle, I want to tell you about my secret powers. 00:12:52.360 --> 00:12:56.139 I can make the children in Mississippi taller. 00:12:56.340 --> 00:13:00.759 Yes, I can. Here's how it happens. Step one, 00:13:01.059 --> 00:13:04.830 flunk all the short kids, then Step two, when 00:13:04.830 --> 00:13:07.110 tested in fourth grade, the average height of 00:13:07.110 --> 00:13:09.669 fourth graders would be taller. The average height 00:13:09.669 --> 00:13:12.389 of third graders would also be taller. And then 00:13:12.389 --> 00:13:14.330 next year in the fourth grade, they'd be taller 00:13:14.330 --> 00:13:17.529 because those short kids have grown a year. It's 00:13:17.529 --> 00:13:23.350 a miracle. It's a Mississippi miracle. That's 00:13:23.350 --> 00:13:27.429 what happened in Mississippi. The Mississippi 00:13:27.429 --> 00:13:33.230 miracle. You had what was before 2013. all these 00:13:33.230 --> 00:13:36.049 test takers, and then they would go to fourth 00:13:36.049 --> 00:13:39.529 grade where the NAEP test was taken. And with 00:13:39.529 --> 00:13:43.970 all the test takers, the results was 209 average. 00:13:44.850 --> 00:13:50.759 But then the miracle came. The miracle. oh wonderful 00:13:50.759 --> 00:13:53.960 upon wonderful the miracle and what they did 00:13:53.960 --> 00:13:57.419 is they put a filter in there and they flunked 00:13:57.419 --> 00:14:01.059 all the low testers in third grade so you only 00:14:01.059 --> 00:14:05.120 had high and medium testers in fourth grade and 00:14:05.120 --> 00:14:07.460 then the next year these low testers weren't 00:14:07.460 --> 00:14:10.799 quite as low but again you are flunking low testers 00:14:10.799 --> 00:14:14.779 so a whole lot of flunking going on and we can 00:14:14.779 --> 00:14:18.500 see here's the start of the miracle and oh look 00:14:18.500 --> 00:14:21.379 at this miracle a mirror and look at Mississippi 00:14:21.379 --> 00:14:26.279 even snuck above the national average it's a 00:14:26.279 --> 00:14:33.600 miracle it's a miracle look at the miracle yes 00:14:33.600 --> 00:14:39.840 yes yes it's a Mississippi miracle okay little 00:14:39.840 --> 00:14:43.019 context before you start celebrating too much 00:14:44.490 --> 00:14:49.769 In four years, those same fourth graders then 00:14:49.769 --> 00:14:52.490 went to eighth grade where they had to once again 00:14:52.490 --> 00:14:59.350 take an NAEP test. And again, starting in 13, 00:14:59.889 --> 00:15:03.309 they were still below the national average. And 00:15:03.309 --> 00:15:07.110 we've got a little bump here, but in 24, they're 00:15:07.110 --> 00:15:14.419 the same as they were in 13. Huh? Huh? The miracle 00:15:14.419 --> 00:15:20.200 went away. It's not a miracle. Oh dear. Oh dear. 00:15:21.779 --> 00:15:26.100 Let's look at letters and orthographic mapping. 00:15:27.440 --> 00:15:31.379 And I've got seven new words I want to introduce 00:15:31.379 --> 00:15:35.519 you to. So I'm going to expand your vocabulary. 00:15:37.280 --> 00:15:40.320 Buzzwords. First, a buzzword is used to elicit 00:15:40.320 --> 00:15:43.940 an emotional response versus accurately transmit 00:15:43.940 --> 00:15:47.659 information. And academic buzzwords are used 00:15:47.659 --> 00:15:51.320 in education to create the illusion of something 00:15:51.320 --> 00:15:54.419 important. I know that probably destroys your 00:15:54.419 --> 00:15:57.440 faith in scholars, but they sometimes do that. 00:15:57.879 --> 00:16:02.620 Imagine that. Here are some lovely, lovely buzzwords. 00:16:03.019 --> 00:16:07.240 Oh, pretty, pretty buzzwords. If you want to 00:16:07.240 --> 00:16:11.039 have some fun, go to a reading league meeting 00:16:11.039 --> 00:16:13.899 or conference. Give this list to people and say, 00:16:14.179 --> 00:16:17.820 write down the definition of these. See how many 00:16:17.820 --> 00:16:21.460 people can do it. See how many lists are the 00:16:21.460 --> 00:16:27.059 same. See if there's any understanding, any similarity. 00:16:28.429 --> 00:16:31.629 And here's the thing about these important sounding 00:16:31.629 --> 00:16:34.269 buzzwords. They're used to describe what people 00:16:34.269 --> 00:16:36.990 think is good. They're used to describe letters 00:16:36.990 --> 00:16:38.850 in Orton Gillingham and this, that, and the other 00:16:38.850 --> 00:16:43.690 thing. These letters can be used to identify 00:16:43.690 --> 00:16:47.549 and describe balanced literacy and even, wait 00:16:47.549 --> 00:16:53.429 for it, whole language. Yes, systematic, direct, 00:16:53.870 --> 00:16:57.559 explicit instruction, whole language. but we're 00:16:57.559 --> 00:17:00.720 looking at orthographic mapping. So let us turn 00:17:00.720 --> 00:17:03.779 to Lexia to help us understand Lexia learning, 00:17:03.879 --> 00:17:07.400 because as Lexia says, that's the connection. 00:17:07.660 --> 00:17:10.019 And Lexia, by the way, if I haven't said it before, 00:17:10.339 --> 00:17:13.759 they are the publishers of letters, professional 00:17:13.759 --> 00:17:17.079 development. Orthographic mapping connections 00:17:17.079 --> 00:17:22.099 leads to literacy success, okay? Well, this was 00:17:22.099 --> 00:17:28.710 a term invented by Linnea Airy, 2014, and it 00:17:28.710 --> 00:17:34.369 is a theory. A theory explains a set of facts. 00:17:35.250 --> 00:17:40.730 You can't see orthographic mapping. Don't get 00:17:40.730 --> 00:17:44.529 snuckered by big fancy brain words and images. 00:17:45.069 --> 00:17:48.930 and things like orthographic mapping. It is a 00:17:48.930 --> 00:17:52.349 theory. A theory explains a set of facts. Different 00:17:52.349 --> 00:17:55.029 theories explain different facts differently. 00:17:56.029 --> 00:17:58.450 Different theories are supported by research. 00:17:59.390 --> 00:18:02.650 Now, orthographic has to do with symbols representing 00:18:02.650 --> 00:18:06.910 sounds and arrangements of letters. We have an 00:18:06.910 --> 00:18:11.250 orthographic language. Each sound, each phoneme 00:18:11.250 --> 00:18:15.390 is represented by a letter, a graph name. as 00:18:15.390 --> 00:18:20.190 opposed to a logo or logographic. Here, a symbol 00:18:20.190 --> 00:18:23.329 represents something. These aren't letter sounds. 00:18:23.369 --> 00:18:29.309 These are symbols. Mapping is how things are 00:18:29.309 --> 00:18:34.109 organized and stored in long -term memory. It's 00:18:34.109 --> 00:18:37.349 how the neurons are connected. If you could see 00:18:37.349 --> 00:18:41.470 a brain image, neural pathways and neural networks, 00:18:41.569 --> 00:18:44.450 and here's how things are connected in your brain. 00:18:44.569 --> 00:18:48.670 as they become activated. Long -term memory is 00:18:48.670 --> 00:18:51.950 kind of like a storage locker. Things are stored 00:18:51.950 --> 00:18:55.329 there and they're organized with related things 00:18:55.329 --> 00:18:58.589 connected to or stored by other related things 00:18:58.589 --> 00:19:01.470 so that we can find them when we go back and 00:19:01.470 --> 00:19:04.890 memory and look for something. Things are not 00:19:04.890 --> 00:19:07.630 stored higgily -piggily like that. It would be 00:19:07.630 --> 00:19:09.990 hard to remember anything if things were just 00:19:09.990 --> 00:19:15.299 put in there haphazardly. Things are organized 00:19:15.299 --> 00:19:19.640 in our brain according to meaning. Related things 00:19:19.640 --> 00:19:24.140 are stored close. When something becomes activated, 00:19:24.700 --> 00:19:27.799 you think about a swan, all those related things, 00:19:28.160 --> 00:19:31.480 electrical signals, go to these related things 00:19:31.480 --> 00:19:35.220 and get activated. That's how long -term memory 00:19:35.220 --> 00:19:41.589 works. Orthographic facilitation. is seeing the 00:19:41.589 --> 00:19:44.690 spelling of a word while learning its meaning 00:19:44.690 --> 00:19:49.009 and sound. Now, this is kind of a, that's one 00:19:49.009 --> 00:19:53.289 of those buzzwords, you know? You see the spelling 00:19:53.289 --> 00:19:57.349 while you're learning the definition, what it 00:19:57.349 --> 00:20:01.329 means and what it sounds like. What it sounds 00:20:01.329 --> 00:20:05.150 like, okay, you see the word dinosaur and you 00:20:05.150 --> 00:20:09.160 see sound symbols. So of course you're gonna 00:20:09.160 --> 00:20:13.480 remember the sound better and the meaning better. 00:20:13.500 --> 00:20:18.680 You see the morphological units, but remembering 00:20:18.680 --> 00:20:22.319 it and knowing the sound of it is different from 00:20:22.319 --> 00:20:27.539 understanding the meaning of the word. Children 00:20:27.539 --> 00:20:31.660 learn three to 5 ,000 words a year. Very few 00:20:31.660 --> 00:20:35.960 of them do they see the spelling of. It's a goofy 00:20:35.960 --> 00:20:40.279 idea. It's a theoretical idea, okay? Just like 00:20:40.279 --> 00:20:43.460 orthographic mapping, the process of storing 00:20:43.460 --> 00:20:46.859 a word permanently in memory for instant retrieval. 00:20:47.119 --> 00:20:49.380 Well, like many things, this is kind of true. 00:20:49.500 --> 00:20:52.440 There's some things that are true about it, all 00:20:52.440 --> 00:20:55.400 right? See a printed word, brain uses letter 00:20:55.400 --> 00:20:59.680 -sound relationship, okay? According to Erie, 00:21:00.650 --> 00:21:03.269 It occurs when in the course of reading specific 00:21:03.269 --> 00:21:06.170 words, readers form connections between written 00:21:06.170 --> 00:21:09.430 unit, either single graphemes or larger spelling 00:21:09.430 --> 00:21:12.710 patterns, and spoken units, either phonemes, 00:21:12.710 --> 00:21:16.289 syllamines, or morphemes. Okay, I don't know 00:21:16.289 --> 00:21:19.809 what the hell she's talking about there. I don't 00:21:19.809 --> 00:21:21.549 know what she's talking about. A lot of words 00:21:21.549 --> 00:21:24.089 here, a lot of buzzwords. Connections between 00:21:24.089 --> 00:21:27.980 written and spoken units. Connections retained 00:21:27.980 --> 00:21:31.299 in memory. Spelling of words enter memory. Spelling 00:21:31.299 --> 00:21:36.259 of words influence vocabulary. What does any 00:21:36.259 --> 00:21:39.799 of this mean? And I'm a poor speller, but I can 00:21:39.799 --> 00:21:42.660 actually have a pretty big vocabulary and could 00:21:42.660 --> 00:21:45.059 read a whole bunch of words. I don't see that 00:21:45.059 --> 00:21:49.259 connection here, but that's just me. But according 00:21:49.259 --> 00:21:53.160 to Erie, there's this special word memory in 00:21:53.160 --> 00:21:56.920 long -term memory. where you map and connect 00:21:56.920 --> 00:21:59.539 letters to sounds, letters to sounds to meanings 00:21:59.539 --> 00:22:03.599 to spelling, and these all impact word recognition, 00:22:03.740 --> 00:22:08.900 ability to spell, and vocabulary. It's very confusing, 00:22:08.900 --> 00:22:12.960 and simply having graphics and charts and organizers 00:22:12.960 --> 00:22:15.900 like this doesn't make a silly thing less silly. 00:22:16.000 --> 00:22:21.779 It just means you have a graphic. Orthographic 00:22:21.779 --> 00:22:25.559 mapping. It explains how children learn to read 00:22:25.559 --> 00:22:28.119 words not reading by sight to spell words from 00:22:28.119 --> 00:22:30.779 memory and to acquire vocabulary from print well 00:22:30.779 --> 00:22:35.559 no it doesn't really explain that at all doesn't 00:22:35.559 --> 00:22:39.380 explain that at all and i've got a whole bunch 00:22:39.380 --> 00:22:42.579 of research citations you can find it on my sub 00:22:42.579 --> 00:22:45.400 stack i devoted a whole chapter to this in my 00:22:45.400 --> 00:22:50.140 book uh that's coming out this summer a theory 00:22:50.140 --> 00:22:55.619 it's a theory a theory that is based on a misinterpretation 00:22:55.619 --> 00:23:00.579 and over interpretation of research data. If 00:23:00.579 --> 00:23:03.140 knowledge was stored in long -term memory in 00:23:03.140 --> 00:23:06.279 the form of words, orthographic mapping might 00:23:06.279 --> 00:23:11.420 make sense, but knowledge is stored in the form 00:23:11.420 --> 00:23:17.099 of associative networks, not words. Let me explain 00:23:17.099 --> 00:23:22.079 that a bit. Orthographic mapping says words are 00:23:22.079 --> 00:23:26.019 memorized and stored in long -term based on letter 00:23:26.019 --> 00:23:29.559 patterns. While semantic mapping, which we call 00:23:29.559 --> 00:23:33.059 memory, says concepts are encoded and organized 00:23:33.059 --> 00:23:36.500 in long -term memory based on meaning. Things 00:23:36.500 --> 00:23:40.180 that are related are stored closer together. 00:23:43.339 --> 00:23:46.160 Things are stored and connected with related 00:23:46.160 --> 00:23:50.220 things. I'll be explaining. Semantic mapping 00:23:50.220 --> 00:23:54.960 is based on association. We call it memory. Orthographic 00:23:54.960 --> 00:23:57.759 may be a thing. There may be some of that letter 00:23:57.759 --> 00:24:01.960 connection. But semantic mapping is a much more 00:24:01.960 --> 00:24:06.339 powerful thing. I'll demonstrate that. If we 00:24:06.339 --> 00:24:09.900 just encountered words floating in space without 00:24:09.900 --> 00:24:13.859 context, orthographic mapping would make sense. 00:24:14.190 --> 00:24:17.710 But words are always encountered in the context 00:24:17.710 --> 00:24:21.730 of a sentence, a sign, or a symbol, or a product, 00:24:22.450 --> 00:24:29.309 not a symbol. So we don't and it doesn't. For 00:24:29.309 --> 00:24:34.190 example, when you see or hear the word cat, what 00:24:34.190 --> 00:24:40.099 comes to mind? Think about it, okay? What doesn't 00:24:40.099 --> 00:24:43.640 come to mind is related letters. You don't say, 00:24:43.640 --> 00:24:46.559 oh, all the words that start with a C or have 00:24:46.559 --> 00:24:51.940 an at phonogram or, you know, it's not letter 00:24:51.940 --> 00:24:55.740 patterns that come to mind. Orthographic mapping 00:24:55.740 --> 00:24:59.759 based on letter patterns. No. When you see and 00:24:59.759 --> 00:25:02.859 hear the word cat, do you associate it with other 00:25:02.859 --> 00:25:07.240 short A words? No. You see the word cat and you 00:25:07.240 --> 00:25:10.720 associate it with cat things. Mapping or memory 00:25:10.720 --> 00:25:15.140 is based on meanings and associations, not letter 00:25:15.140 --> 00:25:18.980 patterns. Semantic mapping may indeed be a thing, 00:25:19.119 --> 00:25:23.559 it's a very weak thing, orthographic mapping, 00:25:23.740 --> 00:25:27.440 but semantic mapping is a much more powerful 00:25:27.440 --> 00:25:31.980 thing. Words stored in long -term memory. Networks 00:25:31.980 --> 00:25:36.200 are connected to other words with semantic relationships. 00:25:40.359 --> 00:25:43.140 The strongest level of word representation in 00:25:43.140 --> 00:25:48.039 long -term memory is not letter patterns, phonological 00:25:48.039 --> 00:25:52.700 or lexical, but meaning, conceptual. And again, 00:25:53.000 --> 00:25:56.180 orthographic mapping may be a thing. but semantic 00:25:56.180 --> 00:26:04.259 mapping or memory is much more of a thing. Our 00:26:04.259 --> 00:26:09.680 neural networks, our brain, it's like three -dimensional 00:26:09.680 --> 00:26:13.819 interconnected harp strings. They vibrate and 00:26:13.819 --> 00:26:18.500 activate related things. Again, If I pluck a 00:26:18.500 --> 00:26:21.940 string there, it's gonna vibrate and make something 00:26:21.940 --> 00:26:24.799 that it's connected to vibrate just like a harp 00:26:24.799 --> 00:26:28.180 string. So I'm plucking the word cat and my brain 00:26:28.180 --> 00:26:32.180 is already activating cat -like things. That 00:26:32.180 --> 00:26:35.319 explains why there's 10 times more information 00:26:35.319 --> 00:26:38.539 flowing down during the act of reading than flowing 00:26:38.539 --> 00:26:41.920 up from the thalamus. All these things have already 00:26:41.920 --> 00:26:45.319 been activated and we're thinking about cat things 00:26:45.720 --> 00:26:51.680 even before we see the next cat words. Vibrating 00:26:51.680 --> 00:26:54.900 heart, connected neurons are activated. That 00:26:54.900 --> 00:26:58.299 enables us to make these micro predictions, the 00:26:58.299 --> 00:27:01.980 guessing game that Goodman called. And I would 00:27:01.980 --> 00:27:04.740 encourage you to, if you say whole language has 00:27:04.740 --> 00:27:09.059 been rejected, for gosh darn sakes, read his 00:27:09.059 --> 00:27:11.420 article before you reject him. You know, then 00:27:11.420 --> 00:27:14.240 tell me exactly what you disagree with. What 00:27:14.240 --> 00:27:18.140 it says, It describes that activation. You're 00:27:18.140 --> 00:27:20.380 reading a book about cats, and as soon as you 00:27:20.380 --> 00:27:23.279 see the word cat, your brain becomes activated. 00:27:23.660 --> 00:27:27.460 These connected neurons are activated, related 00:27:27.460 --> 00:27:31.460 things. So you need to use less letter clues. 00:27:33.619 --> 00:27:37.559 Orthographic mapping. What is it? Well, I call 00:27:37.559 --> 00:27:45.259 a pile of baloney. What about the gold standard 00:27:45.259 --> 00:27:49.460 research? Okay, very good. Well, U .S. Department 00:27:49.460 --> 00:27:53.279 of Education, they defined research as using 00:27:53.279 --> 00:27:56.480 experimental or quasi -experimental design with 00:27:56.480 --> 00:28:00.240 appropriate controls, random assignment, all 00:28:00.240 --> 00:28:02.759 right, and have to be, if it's the gold standard 00:28:02.759 --> 00:28:05.119 and that's what needs to be used, science of 00:28:05.119 --> 00:28:08.619 reading and all, has to be done in an actual 00:28:08.619 --> 00:28:11.960 classroom. It can't be basic. It must be applied 00:28:11.960 --> 00:28:16.759 research. OK. Basic science of reading definition 00:28:16.759 --> 00:28:20.519 using strategies and practice shown to be effective 00:28:20.519 --> 00:28:24.299 using controlled experimental or quasi -experimental 00:28:24.299 --> 00:28:27.940 research and conducted in an actual setting. 00:28:28.900 --> 00:28:33.299 So decisions about programs, policies, and such 00:28:33.299 --> 00:28:38.039 are all based on these strategies and practices. 00:28:38.410 --> 00:28:40.589 Okay. And I would be okay with that. I think 00:28:40.589 --> 00:28:45.190 that's a limited view, but if it were consistently 00:28:45.190 --> 00:28:48.930 applied, but it's not, it's not consistently 00:28:48.930 --> 00:28:54.849 applied. If science of reading advocates would 00:28:54.849 --> 00:28:58.349 hold themselves to the same standards, I could 00:28:58.349 --> 00:29:01.369 live with it. Mandated programs, curriculum, 00:29:01.470 --> 00:29:04.650 and policies, but things like letters and Orton 00:29:04.650 --> 00:29:11.000 Gillingham, there's no No applied research showing 00:29:11.000 --> 00:29:14.039 that it enhances reading or is more effective 00:29:14.039 --> 00:29:19.339 than something else. Research is not simply collecting 00:29:19.339 --> 00:29:23.619 data and saying stuff. Some of Louisa Moat, she 00:29:23.619 --> 00:29:26.779 just collects data. She gives a survey. You can't 00:29:26.779 --> 00:29:29.380 find a research question. And then she says stuff. 00:29:29.720 --> 00:29:34.859 That's not research. Research is not research 00:29:34.859 --> 00:29:38.240 unless and until it has been subjected to blind 00:29:38.240 --> 00:29:41.819 peer review. But even with the gold standard, 00:29:42.279 --> 00:29:44.980 there is trouble with some of this stuff. So 00:29:44.980 --> 00:29:48.200 let's take a look at the evidence for letters. 00:29:49.200 --> 00:29:52.299 Is letters professional development evidence 00:29:52.299 --> 00:29:56.059 -based? Is it research -based? These are the 00:29:56.059 --> 00:30:03.220 wrong questions to ask. Instead, Is there strong 00:30:03.220 --> 00:30:06.359 research to support to address these questions? 00:30:07.980 --> 00:30:11.000 Does it improve reading achievement? Has it been 00:30:11.000 --> 00:30:13.539 shown to improve teachers' ability to teach? 00:30:13.819 --> 00:30:16.500 Has it been shown to be more effective than other 00:30:16.500 --> 00:30:19.619 forms of professional development? And if there's 00:30:19.619 --> 00:30:22.359 these research studies out there, they're sure 00:30:22.359 --> 00:30:26.579 kept hidden. In examining letters, I was looking 00:30:26.579 --> 00:30:30.420 for controlled experimental quasi -experimental 00:30:30.420 --> 00:30:34.150 research. that's the gold standards, and a causal 00:30:34.150 --> 00:30:37.670 link between letters and teachers' ability to 00:30:37.670 --> 00:30:40.329 teach reading and teach it effectively and that 00:30:40.329 --> 00:30:44.190 comparison. That is the gold standard. I don't 00:30:44.190 --> 00:30:48.630 need thousands, I just need one or two. Now here's 00:30:48.630 --> 00:30:52.309 the thing. Dr. Moats and her minions would have 00:30:52.309 --> 00:30:55.630 us believe that if teachers had just the right 00:30:55.630 --> 00:30:59.809 kind of knowledge, her kind of knowledge, then 00:31:00.000 --> 00:31:02.299 they could teach reading effectively, and all 00:31:02.299 --> 00:31:05.700 those pesky reading problems would go away. That's 00:31:05.700 --> 00:31:10.279 not really very scientific thinking. Well, research 00:31:10.279 --> 00:31:14.680 has been put forth to support those propositions 00:31:14.680 --> 00:31:17.819 that she has the right kind of knowledge. This 00:31:17.819 --> 00:31:22.200 is based on, I think, results. What kind of knowledge 00:31:22.200 --> 00:31:25.480 is important? Dr. Moats claims that her kind 00:31:25.480 --> 00:31:28.400 of knowledge is the right kind of knowledge, 00:31:28.440 --> 00:31:33.240 and you must have her knowledge. This is the 00:31:33.240 --> 00:31:37.960 irrefutable logic of Dr. Moats. A, letters professional 00:31:37.960 --> 00:31:41.700 development, equals B, more effective teaching. 00:31:42.400 --> 00:31:47.140 Okay, follow the logic. B, more effective teaching, 00:31:47.420 --> 00:31:50.299 equals C, higher levels of reading achievement. 00:31:50.920 --> 00:31:57.180 Okay, therefore, A equals C. Letters equals higher 00:31:57.180 --> 00:32:02.220 levels of reading achievement. Okay. Also, A, 00:32:02.220 --> 00:32:06.160 letters equals D, solution to all problems. Okay. 00:32:06.539 --> 00:32:10.960 Also, A is greater than E, all other forms of 00:32:10.960 --> 00:32:14.440 professional development for reading. And F, 00:32:14.819 --> 00:32:18.019 all teacher preparation programs is less than 00:32:18.019 --> 00:32:22.380 A, letters professional development. Hmm. It's 00:32:22.380 --> 00:32:26.779 logical, irrefutable, but there's no research 00:32:26.779 --> 00:32:29.380 evidence. I'm going to throw a monkey wrench 00:32:29.380 --> 00:32:33.339 in the fly ointment. No causal link from A to 00:32:33.339 --> 00:32:36.960 B, C, D, or E. No comparative research showing 00:32:36.960 --> 00:32:41.599 A is greater than E or F is less than A. And 00:32:41.599 --> 00:32:44.940 we are operating in a scientific environment, 00:32:45.079 --> 00:32:49.440 are we? Is the knowledge of Louisa Moats better 00:32:49.440 --> 00:32:52.799 than the knowledge of others? Say Richard Ellington, 00:32:53.339 --> 00:32:58.480 Mari Clay, Denny Taylor, the owner's manual for 00:32:58.480 --> 00:33:02.759 an Evan Rood outboard engine. Is it better than 00:33:02.759 --> 00:33:07.500 that? Please show me some research. And again, 00:33:08.079 --> 00:33:12.299 has research shown that her special knowledge 00:33:12.299 --> 00:33:15.500 improves reading achievement, teaching ability, 00:33:15.500 --> 00:33:18.900 and is better than some other special knowledge? 00:33:21.839 --> 00:33:25.099 Well, let's take a look at some of the primary 00:33:25.099 --> 00:33:28.460 research conducted by Dr. Modes, who is the author 00:33:28.460 --> 00:33:32.279 of letters. And again, we're looking for a causal 00:33:32.279 --> 00:33:35.880 variable linking letters and teachers' ability 00:33:35.880 --> 00:33:41.200 to teach, students' ability to read, and as comparing 00:33:41.200 --> 00:33:47.660 it to something else. Basic research standards. 00:33:49.549 --> 00:33:53.529 All right, 1994, this research study. This is 00:33:53.529 --> 00:33:57.630 interesting. Now, yeah, you're saying 1994. Well, 00:33:57.650 --> 00:34:01.490 this is cited in her white paper and her white 00:34:01.490 --> 00:34:04.569 paper is cited all over the place. It's found 00:34:04.569 --> 00:34:08.389 on the Lexia Letters website. And this was used 00:34:08.389 --> 00:34:12.269 to support two propositions. First, that teachers 00:34:12.269 --> 00:34:16.409 aren't being adequately trained to teach reading. 00:34:16.550 --> 00:34:19.380 We don't train, by the way, we educate. that 00:34:19.380 --> 00:34:21.579 they need more training in phoneme awareness 00:34:21.579 --> 00:34:24.619 and phonics, and they do not have fully developed 00:34:24.619 --> 00:34:27.380 phonemic awareness or an understanding of the 00:34:27.380 --> 00:34:31.219 way words are spelled. Okay, let's see if her 00:34:31.219 --> 00:34:34.380 research meets the science of reading goal standards 00:34:34.380 --> 00:34:37.780 that must be used. She was teaching graduate 00:34:37.780 --> 00:34:41.980 courses, and she had a self -selected population. 00:34:42.559 --> 00:34:46.269 Not a random, but self -selected. of 89 students 00:34:46.269 --> 00:34:49.030 who are taking an elective course called reading, 00:34:49.210 --> 00:34:53.989 spelling, and phonology. So these students were 00:34:53.989 --> 00:34:57.170 taking a course. There was an equal distribution, 00:34:57.190 --> 00:35:01.150 meaning that some were speech language pathologists, 00:35:01.769 --> 00:35:04.710 some teaching assistants, some graduate assistants, 00:35:04.769 --> 00:35:08.809 and so, you know, we don't know how many of each, 00:35:09.170 --> 00:35:12.170 how many were actual classroom teachers. We don't. 00:35:12.679 --> 00:35:17.400 But she gave a survey, a test on what she thought 00:35:17.400 --> 00:35:21.599 was important for teaching reading. Students 00:35:21.599 --> 00:35:25.360 signed up for her class to learn the very things 00:35:25.360 --> 00:35:27.940 that she thought was important, the very things 00:35:27.940 --> 00:35:31.139 that were on the survey. And of course they didn't 00:35:31.139 --> 00:35:33.940 know it, but she's saying these things, content 00:35:33.940 --> 00:35:38.400 of the survey, are important for being able to 00:35:38.400 --> 00:35:43.239 teach reading. Interesting. This is based on 00:35:43.239 --> 00:35:47.780 an I think -ism. There's nothing to support that 00:35:47.780 --> 00:35:51.139 her knowledge is necessary or sufficient for 00:35:51.139 --> 00:35:53.599 teaching, reading. There's no research question. 00:35:53.900 --> 00:35:57.539 She just gave a survey on a bunch of stuff she 00:35:57.539 --> 00:36:00.480 thought was important. And then she said a bunch 00:36:00.480 --> 00:36:05.909 of stuff about her survey afterwards. If you 00:36:05.909 --> 00:36:08.570 look at the actual article and look for the research 00:36:08.570 --> 00:36:11.070 question, you'll see there isn't one. She just 00:36:11.070 --> 00:36:13.789 gave a survey and said a bunch of stuff. Yet 00:36:13.789 --> 00:36:16.469 this study is often used to generalize about 00:36:16.469 --> 00:36:19.489 teacher's knowledge and teacher education programs. 00:36:20.010 --> 00:36:22.489 This was published in the Annals of Dyslexia, 00:36:22.510 --> 00:36:25.599 which makes you question that. but the Annals 00:36:25.599 --> 00:36:29.300 of Dyslexia and the International Dyslexia Association, 00:36:29.639 --> 00:36:33.019 they came originally from the Orton -Gillingham 00:36:33.019 --> 00:36:36.880 International Dyslexia Association, and the Bulletin 00:36:36.880 --> 00:36:40.699 of the Orton Society is what it was called. So 00:36:40.699 --> 00:36:44.360 I wonder, hmm, you think they're gonna look favorably 00:36:44.360 --> 00:36:48.460 on Orton -Gillingham stuff? Probably so. A second 00:36:48.460 --> 00:36:53.349 study, Motz and Forman. Okay, measuring teachers' 00:36:53.849 --> 00:36:56.710 content knowledge of language and reading. A 00:36:56.710 --> 00:36:59.769 three -year study, 50 kindergarten first graders 00:36:59.769 --> 00:37:04.230 given a survey, 41 second and third survey, 103 00:37:04.230 --> 00:37:08.130 third and fourth survey, and not surprisingly, 00:37:08.429 --> 00:37:12.969 she found surprising gaps in teachers' insights 00:37:12.969 --> 00:37:15.949 about learning to read, meaning they did not 00:37:15.949 --> 00:37:18.289 know the things that she wanted them to know 00:37:18.289 --> 00:37:22.139 or she thought she should know. She's built her 00:37:22.139 --> 00:37:25.400 career on I thinkisms. I think teachers should 00:37:25.400 --> 00:37:28.099 know this. And some of my colleagues have taken 00:37:28.099 --> 00:37:30.360 letters training and said there's interesting 00:37:30.360 --> 00:37:34.119 stuff there, but there's interesting stuff on 00:37:34.119 --> 00:37:37.420 the history channel that does not mean that it 00:37:37.420 --> 00:37:41.400 should be required for reading teachers. Her 00:37:41.400 --> 00:37:45.619 conclusions were teachers who attended professional 00:37:45.619 --> 00:37:49.960 development courses regularly scored higher on 00:37:49.960 --> 00:37:53.119 the knowledge survey than those with low or no 00:37:53.119 --> 00:37:58.300 attendance. That was the data. And she's misinterpreting 00:37:58.300 --> 00:38:01.539 her own data to say that there are surprising 00:38:01.539 --> 00:38:04.579 gaps and teachers don't know these things. And 00:38:04.579 --> 00:38:08.320 it does not meet the science of reading research 00:38:08.320 --> 00:38:16.239 standards. Here's her white paper, 2021. I examine 00:38:16.460 --> 00:38:20.380 and evaluated every single stinking research 00:38:20.380 --> 00:38:26.099 study used by her in her 10 points. And there's 00:38:26.099 --> 00:38:28.860 a reason why this is a white paper and not an 00:38:28.860 --> 00:38:33.039 article, because it would never pass muster. 00:38:33.659 --> 00:38:37.159 In every instance, the research she cited did 00:38:37.159 --> 00:38:40.119 not support the proposition for which it was 00:38:40.119 --> 00:38:42.619 cited. None of the 10 statements are supported 00:38:42.619 --> 00:38:47.090 by the research studies cited. And after reading 00:38:47.090 --> 00:38:49.949 this white paper, people ask me that you have 00:38:49.949 --> 00:38:52.530 a very negative view of letters. Have you ever 00:38:52.530 --> 00:38:55.869 taken letters training? After reading that white 00:38:55.869 --> 00:39:00.150 paper, why would anyone spend 10 minutes or 10 00:39:00.150 --> 00:39:04.130 cents on anything related to letters? That's 00:39:04.130 --> 00:39:07.300 what I ask, all right? Let's just take a look. 00:39:07.320 --> 00:39:10.260 Prior coursework has been insufficient to prepare 00:39:10.260 --> 00:39:12.519 teachers for effective literacy instruction. 00:39:12.880 --> 00:39:15.500 She did not support this, what she cited did 00:39:15.500 --> 00:39:18.719 not. And here's the thing, two of her sources 00:39:18.719 --> 00:39:23.980 are invalid. National Council for Teachers of 00:39:23.980 --> 00:39:27.099 Quality, that's not peer review, that is not 00:39:27.099 --> 00:39:33.699 an academic journal. This is an interesting one, 00:39:34.039 --> 00:39:37.860 Josie Bengtson Graham. Again, this is used to 00:39:37.860 --> 00:39:40.059 support the assertion that pre -service teachers 00:39:40.059 --> 00:39:43.099 aren't being adequately taught, aren't being 00:39:43.099 --> 00:39:46.480 adequately prepared. They examine textbooks, 00:39:46.800 --> 00:39:49.940 what was in a textbook, and did it have what 00:39:49.940 --> 00:39:52.460 they thought was important? Did they have enough 00:39:52.460 --> 00:39:56.739 of the five core? All right? What's in a textbook 00:39:56.739 --> 00:40:01.659 does not relate to what's in a course. It's just 00:40:01.659 --> 00:40:06.840 goofy. It is absolutely goofy. Teachers matter 00:40:06.840 --> 00:40:10.039 more than programs. Well, yes, I think we all 00:40:10.039 --> 00:40:15.380 agree with that. Okay. Teachers need compatible 00:40:15.380 --> 00:40:19.900 coaching and peer support. Well, okay. Teaching 00:40:19.900 --> 00:40:25.780 is rocket science. Again, not valid sources, 00:40:26.119 --> 00:40:30.679 but it didn't support those. Language is the 00:40:30.679 --> 00:40:35.090 missing foundation. Again, these are not valid 00:40:35.090 --> 00:40:39.670 sources and these did not at all support the 00:40:39.670 --> 00:40:43.329 propositions for which they were cited. Phonemic 00:40:43.329 --> 00:40:45.550 awareness and phonics are major components for 00:40:45.550 --> 00:40:48.590 which teachers need more training. Again, not 00:40:48.590 --> 00:40:53.309 a valid source. Again, none of these supported 00:40:53.309 --> 00:40:58.010 the propositions. None of them. Look it up yourself. 00:40:58.730 --> 00:41:01.489 Teachers' estimates of their own knowledge often 00:41:01.489 --> 00:41:07.190 diverge from objective evidence. Okay. Acquiring 00:41:07.190 --> 00:41:09.389 deep knowledge of reading instruction takes time. 00:41:09.730 --> 00:41:14.090 Okay, yeah, we agree with that. Okay, but not 00:41:14.090 --> 00:41:17.570 valid sources. When teachers know more, students 00:41:17.570 --> 00:41:20.070 learn more. Well, we all agree with that, but 00:41:20.070 --> 00:41:23.530 it's not... what you think they should know. 00:41:23.889 --> 00:41:26.510 Teacher knowledge has always been essential. 00:41:26.570 --> 00:41:29.989 That's never been in question. That's why we 00:41:29.989 --> 00:41:33.590 need legitimate professional development, not 00:41:33.590 --> 00:41:37.769 for profit, stuff like letters. That's not legitimate 00:41:37.769 --> 00:41:41.030 professional development. Effective teachers 00:41:41.030 --> 00:41:43.670 are more content and will love their jobs. Well, 00:41:43.670 --> 00:41:46.989 that's not a valid source, but I agree with that. 00:41:47.070 --> 00:41:51.219 I mean, duh, okay. So my question after reading 00:41:51.219 --> 00:41:55.320 her white paper, does Dr. Motz not know better 00:41:55.320 --> 00:41:58.820 or does she know better and does this anyway? 00:41:59.320 --> 00:42:03.719 Both are not very, both are scary propositions 00:42:03.719 --> 00:42:11.019 to consider. Letters has efficacy research. Again, 00:42:11.400 --> 00:42:13.559 efficacy research. You say, oh, there must be 00:42:13.559 --> 00:42:16.360 research there. This is on the Lexia letters. 00:42:17.300 --> 00:42:23.119 Okay. Let's see if we can find, let's take a 00:42:23.119 --> 00:42:26.539 look. I examined each of the 18 research studies 00:42:26.539 --> 00:42:29.679 that Lexia said constitutes the evidence base 00:42:29.679 --> 00:42:33.360 for letters. Letters grouped them into three 00:42:33.360 --> 00:42:36.219 categories. Peer -reviewed publications, there 00:42:36.219 --> 00:42:39.420 was only two of those. Third -party evaluations, 00:42:39.539 --> 00:42:42.920 there were four of those, and that's not research. 00:42:43.900 --> 00:42:46.519 Unpublished masters or doctoral dissertation, 00:42:46.699 --> 00:42:49.340 that's not research. There's a reason why they're 00:42:49.340 --> 00:42:54.420 unpublished. Only two of the 18 were published 00:42:54.420 --> 00:42:57.579 in peer review. And we'll look at just both of 00:42:57.579 --> 00:43:02.460 them. These are the two. The first one, you know, 00:43:02.519 --> 00:43:04.679 here's the thing. You can see a difference in 00:43:04.679 --> 00:43:07.920 how letters described it in their efficacy report 00:43:07.920 --> 00:43:11.920 and the actual abstract. Letters use the term, 00:43:12.579 --> 00:43:15.980 Lexia used the term letters five times in their 00:43:15.980 --> 00:43:20.300 description. Well, the authors used it zero times. 00:43:20.699 --> 00:43:24.480 The study wasn't about letters at all. The research 00:43:24.480 --> 00:43:27.659 had nothing to do with letters. But you can see 00:43:27.659 --> 00:43:30.239 Lexia using letters, letters, letters all the 00:43:30.239 --> 00:43:35.079 time. And the actual abstract had nothing to 00:43:35.079 --> 00:43:38.480 do with letters. They're comparing professional 00:43:38.480 --> 00:43:41.800 development coaches to no professional development 00:43:41.800 --> 00:43:47.199 coaches. The same with this study. the Lexia 00:43:47.199 --> 00:43:52.699 description mentioned letters, the actual abstract 00:43:52.699 --> 00:43:56.280 does not. It's because the study looked at reading 00:43:56.280 --> 00:44:01.039 programs with explicit instruction and compared 00:44:01.039 --> 00:44:03.639 children with learning disabilities and speech 00:44:03.639 --> 00:44:09.639 disabilities to those without. Okay, letters, 00:44:10.239 --> 00:44:13.860 Lexia description, letters training, okay. But 00:44:13.860 --> 00:44:16.719 at the end, this analysis does not compare the 00:44:16.719 --> 00:44:19.059 reading first program to comparison condition, 00:44:19.460 --> 00:44:21.719 so causal conclusions about the intervention. 00:44:22.679 --> 00:44:26.460 Okay, what the hell? What the hell? Abstract? 00:44:27.619 --> 00:44:31.440 I see nothing related to letters there. None 00:44:31.440 --> 00:44:35.519 of these would pass the science of reading research 00:44:35.519 --> 00:44:40.340 standards muster. Third -party evaluations. These 00:44:40.340 --> 00:44:45.289 are not research. There's no blind peer review. 00:44:46.150 --> 00:44:48.590 None of them. None of them make a causal link 00:44:48.590 --> 00:44:51.650 between letters and teacher's ability to teach 00:44:51.650 --> 00:44:54.809 reading. None of them compare letters to other 00:44:54.809 --> 00:45:01.829 forms of professional development. And then unpublished 00:45:01.829 --> 00:45:04.769 theses and dissertations from small universities. 00:45:05.090 --> 00:45:08.380 These are unpublished for a reason. Often committee 00:45:08.380 --> 00:45:11.059 members had no literacy background in departments 00:45:11.059 --> 00:45:14.940 outside of education. EDD is not a research degree. 00:45:14.980 --> 00:45:19.380 There's no blind peer review. And again, Lexia's 00:45:19.380 --> 00:45:22.840 description of these theses and dissertations 00:45:22.840 --> 00:45:27.099 differ from the abstract with many methodological 00:45:27.099 --> 00:45:38.510 concerns. Conclusions. There's no causal research 00:45:38.510 --> 00:45:41.630 that has been shown linking letters with teacher 00:45:41.630 --> 00:45:44.130 effectiveness or student reading achievement, 00:45:45.190 --> 00:45:48.230 comparing letters professional development with 00:45:48.230 --> 00:45:51.670 other forms of professional development, comparing 00:45:51.670 --> 00:45:55.070 letters knowledge with any other types of knowledge. 00:45:55.789 --> 00:45:58.829 Dr. Moats either doesn't know better or she knows 00:45:58.829 --> 00:46:02.389 better and does it anyway. Always question the 00:46:02.389 --> 00:46:05.010 premise of science of reading claims and letters. 00:46:05.530 --> 00:46:12.170 Always look to see what's measured and how. All 00:46:12.170 --> 00:46:16.210 right. Hope you have had a wonderful learning 00:46:16.210 --> 00:46:19.170 experience. I will stop right here.