The Reading Instruction Show

Susan Vincent is a knowledgeable, experienced literacy educator. This is an incredible conversation.

I’m, analyzing all the things that Jessica Winter got wrong in her article, ‘The Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based Literacy’ because that’s what I do. I’m using my teeny-tiny little podcast to point out the errors and misinformation of her article written for The New Yorker with a circulation of over 1 million readers. I am assuming her errors weren’t intentional. We are left to conclude that that her errors are based on a lack of knowledge, what is sometimes known as ignorance.

Jessica Winter is an editor at The New Yorker, where she also writes about family and education. She wrote an article for the New Yorker entitled, ‘The Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based Literacy’. I’m spending time analyzing this article in a series of podcasts because it mis-describes reading instruction in a way that’s really hard to imagine. In so doing, it perfectly represents the mis-descriptions and un-understandings of the SoR movement. Normally I wouldn’t waste a lot of time on a clown like Jessica Winter. As stated earlier, a clown in literacy terms is one who thinks they know a great deal about literacy when in fact, they know relatively little. They know so little, that they don’t even know how little they know. What makes a clown a clown is that they go around making decisions, promoting policies, and advocating change based largely on personal anecdotes, I-think-isms, and selected bits of research. Now, if one limits one’s clownism to the privacy of their own home, clownery would not be a problem. But when clowns with large platforms, like Jessica Winter and Emily Hanford, use their large platforms to spread clownery like an infectious disease, we must waste our time and energy creating an intellectual prophylactic. This is time that could have been spent helping children to achieve their full literacy potential.

Jessica Winter is an editor at The New Yorker, where she also writes about family and education. She wrote an article for the New Yorker entitled, ‘The Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based Literacy’. In this series of podcasts, I’m analyzing this article because it describes or mis-describes reading instruction. As I started reading, I soon realized that Jessica Winter had no idea of what she was talking about. Her misrepresentation and un-understanding could have a negative impact if readers actually take her seriously. Since the New Yorker has a circulation of over a million readers, I felt I should say something. Will my humble little podcast actually make a difference? Will it change anybody’s mind? Jessica Winter’s article represents everything that’s wrong and harmful about the current Science of Reading movement. That’s why I’m analyzing it. It’s based on a knowledge base related to reading instruction that’s shallow and disjointed at best. It relies on anecdotes, personal experiences, and emotions to create a picture that’s not at all accurate. And like the science of reading movement, this article uses a very un-scientific process to try to understand reading instruction. And when you use un-scientific methodology to come to know things you must expect to get cartoonish portrayals and misinformation. It is a bit ironic that a movement with “science” in the title (science of reading), is in actuality so very unscientific in its methods used to understand reading reality.

Yesterday I recorded a podcast that was full of sarcasm and biting comments about an article that Jessica Winter wrote for the New Yorker where she used the term "Vibes-Based Literacy" to demean something she obviously didn't understand. Some have said I was a little harsh. In this podcast I explain why we (I) sometimes have to resort to sarcasm and other childish things.

This podcast examines an article written in The New Yorker called, 'The Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based Literacy'. It was written by Jessica Winter. She's an editor at The New Yorker, where she also writes about family and education. She is also, a clown. A clown, in literacy terms, is a person who thinks they know much about literacy, when in fact, their knowledge base is very shallow and disjointed. What makes a clown a clown is their clownery. This is when they write or speak as if they know a lot about things with which they actually know very little. We laugh at clowns. I laugh at Jessica Winter. I also laugh at Emily Hanford because they’re clowns and they don’t realize that they’re clowns. They see themselves as great crusaders for the betterment of our “children’s” education. Ha, ha, ha. Very funny. This is the first in a series of podcasts examining this article. In this podcast, I try to help Jessica Winter understand what Reading Workshop is.

We live in an age of clownery. In today’s clown age, radio journalists (Emily Hanford) get more attention from schools, state legislators, and even groups like the Illinois Reading Council than do teachers, serious academicians, researchers, and scholars when talking about reading instruction. In this age of clownery, for-profit groups are making decisions about what gets taught in our schools and what kind of professional development teachers receive. The voices of teachers and literacy experts, scholars, researchers have been silenced while the faceless moneychangers from the educational industrial complex are amplified But one of the problems in combating clowns is the effectiveness of their own clownery. Amongst the clutter of jokes disguised as facts, it can be difficult to get accurate (truthful) information out to the public. Today, know-nothing radio journalists are considered experts in reading instruction. As well, an article or column in a newspaper or magazine, written by a reporter who is hired to write about stuff about everything, gets more attention than a solid, peer-reviewed article published in an academic journal. That’s just the way of things. That’s how most come to understand reality. Decision makers are bottle-fed the warm milk of distortion from the teat of American Public Media.

00:48 Phonemic Awareness08:25 Reading14:04 Word Recognition26:02 Decoding29:03 Professional Development34:28 Dyslexia40:20 Balanced Literacy51:10 Reading Crisis55:57 Orthography58:10 Systematic Phonics Instruction1:00:23 Alphabetic Principle

This is a conversation with Anna Hamman, another master teacher. We are looking to have teachers like this impacting our field.

if you’re one of those people running around saying the three cueing systems has been debunked, you might as well get one of those ‘hello’ stickers, and write, “Hello, I’m ignorant” on it. Then stick it right in the middle of your forehead. Because that’s what you’re saying to the world. "Hello, I'm ignorant!"

This is my conversation with Stephanie Fuhr. She is a master teacher who was forced to leave her classroom because she couldn't bring herself to committee educational malpractice. We can't afford to lose our master teachers.

This is my conversation with master literacy teacher, Ronda Schlumbohm. Why in heaven's name are people listening to no-nothing clowns like Emily Hanford and not knowledgeable expert teachers of reading like Ronda Schlumbohm?

This is a recording of a conversation with Dave Boulton. He and I have different views on reading instruction. Hopefully, we are modeling how to have respectful academic discussions.

Why is it that reading instruction sometimes ineffective? This podcast addresses two reasons: (a) the myth of standardization and (b) a lack of understanding related to the reading process,

Children naturally want to learn. They want to make sense of their environment. They naturally want to create meaning with print. However, when you teach children in ways that don’t align with their natural inclination, you make learning harder. You create more frustration and failures. And when children communicate their frustration with their behavior, you use PBIS to try to make the behaviors go away. You seek to suppress and correct the behaviors for which you are largely responsible. You are addressing the effect instead of the cause – but you (Emily Hanford, Louisa Moats, and SoR ideologists) are the cause. I am not saying that bad SoR reading instruction is the cause of all bad behavior. I am not saying that PBIS should never be used. But I am saying that when students are engaged in their learning and when they are enjoying what they’re doing, and when they are successful at what they’re doing, and when learning is something they do instead of something that’s done to them … there are far, far, far fewer behavior problems and much more learning. I'm just saying.

Point #1: Teachers and administrators must become informed and responsible consumers of educational research. When somebody says, “research shows this” or “research proves that …” We must always ask, “What research? Give me a citation. Effective for what? At what level? For what purpose? How?” And then we must look at the research study. Point #2: State and federal legislators, those who want to impose mandates on teachers, telling them what and how to teach. Pull your heads out of your collective asses. Do what is right not what is politically expedient. If you’re not going to review the research related to reading instruction, at least call in those who have. Stop making educational decisions based on the testimony of radio journalists. Point #3: We want all students to achieve their full literacy potential. Science of Reading ideologists, I know that’s your intent. It’s a good intent. But intent does not mitigate impact. In five years, when the full impact of what you’ve done will be realized, and people understand just how much time, money, and resources you have wasted, I’ll be doing another podcast. This one will be called, “I Told You So.”

Knowledge is important in any endeavor. It’s what separates novices from experts. Experts have more of it. Novices have less of it. Expert teachers have four kinds of knowledge:(a) content knowledge – knowledge of what they’re teaching. This would be math, if you’re a math teacher. Science if you’re a science teacher. And everything if you’re an elementary education teacher. (b) pedagogical knowledge. This is knowledge of basic teaching strategies such as discovery learning, question-asking, discussions, inquiry learning, and cooperative learning.(c) pedagogical content knowledge – This is knowledge of teaching strategies for specific content areas. In reading, this would reading methods. You have strategies for fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, etc.(d) and knowledge of learners and learning. You know how humans learn and develop. This is the ed psych stuff – which is the basis of all things. To move from novice to expert is a rather simple thing. Simply increase knowledge in all four areas. It’s not that complicated.

There are two basic approaches to literacy instruction for students in the early grades: a skills-based, Humpty-Dumptian approach and a child-centered, meaning-based approach. Both approaches involve explicit skills instruction. The difference is not in the ‘what’ of explicit skills instruction; rather, it’s the ‘how’, and the ‘how much’ of explicit skills instruction.

I’ve been blocked from posting comments on some literacy Facebook groups and other websites related to reading instruction. They don’t want my words to appear on their pages. I had the temerity to post thoughts with which they disagree. Imagine that. I had an idea that was a bit different than theirs. As a matter of fact, it pointed out some of the possible science of reading shortcomings. They would have none of that. They need to protect their members. But for any field to evolve, it needs to encounter new ideas. The field of literacy education will evolve only to the extent that we are able to engage in civil discourse and respectful academic dialogue. My Facebook page welcomes all thoughts: https://www.facebook.com/readingdisabilities

If you are going to embrace the science of reading, you can’t be just a little bit SOR. You can’t be partial SOR, or somewhat SOR. You can’t be semi-science of reading. If you are going to be a SOR advocate, you must embrace and apply SOR principles completely and consistently. In other words, if you are for the SOR and support related legislation, then you would use the same SOR principles to identify the reading problem, the cause of reading problems, and possible solutions to the reading problem.

In order to understand the science of reading, and how this term is misused, we must first get a better handle on science. I will cover some of the basics and end with a description of 7 questionable claims, based on I-think-isms, often brought up by Science of Reading advocates.

Despite having the word “science” in their title, the ideas put forth by the Science of Reading are not grounded in science at all, but in pseudo-science, I-think-isms, and anecdotal evidence. In fact, they are promoting an ideology. An ideology is a system of ideas and beliefs. Hence, the SOR would be more accurately named, the Ideology of Reading. What the SOR promotes is based far more on a reading belief system than reading science. Real science puts forth conclusions and recommendations based on a wide body of research. An ideology puts forth a dogma based on a very narrow range of data that must be adhered to.

This podcast explains what reading science is, how data collected from research studies are used to create theory, how theories are used to inform practice, and how one should used research to inform policy, practices, and programs.

In this podcast, I offer a definition of reading science that I got from an article written by Tim Shanahan. And since the Science of Reading clown club seems so enamored with phonics, we'll look at what the National Reading Panel Report actually says about phonics and balanced reading instruction. Spoiler alert: heads will explode.

Comprehension means total or complete. In defining comprehensive reading instruction, I will rely heavily on data from the NRP report. I would encourage all to read it. Not the executive summary, but the actual report. The five pillars of reading instruction are usually attributed to this report. However, to be comprehensive, a reading program needs to include 10 pillars. These are described here.

A variety of research studies conducted over the years have shown that of all the variables impacting the quality of teaching and the amount of learning that goes on in the classroom, the most significant variable is . . . the teacher. Yet, we underpay, undervalue, and disempower this most significant of significant variables and expect them to come back year after year because they “love” kids. Is there a teacher shortage? Yup. But even worse, there’s an excellent teacher shortage. In this podcast, I address 10 factors that, if addressed, would alleviate both the teacher shortage and the excellent teacher shortage.

The essence of science is this: you ask a question and then collect data to answer that question. That is science. It’s a process. It’s a verb. To science. With science, the data can’t just be collected higgily-piggily. There must be an approved method and that method must be systematic. There are many systematic methods that can be used to collect the data used to answer questions. And there are many types of data to collect. Hence, there is no single scientific method; rather, there are methods of science. An important distinction to be made between science and pseudo-science: Science – asks a question and then collects data to answer the question. Pseudo-science starts with the answer, and then collects data to support that answer.

Tim Shanahan, Louisa Moats, Linnea Ehri, Wilson Reading Systems, Orton-Gillingham profiteers, SOR advocates, the International Dyslexia Association, and other plucky little phonics penguins are advocating that we teach children to read by guessing at words. Their skills-first approach to reading instruction is based on the phonological processing model. Sometimes called the simple view of reading, this model defines reading as a combination of decoding (sounding out words) and listening comprehension. Essentially, you sound out words and listen to the speech in the headIf you come to a word you don’t recognize, students are taught to put sounds to each of the letters, then put all the sounds together, then guess what the word is based on the sounds. This is nothing more than a grapheme-phoneme word-guessing game. We’ve got to put a stop to this horrible, horrible travesty of reading instruction.

The language arts is the study of grammar, punctuation, composition, spelling, and speech that’s usually taught as a single subject in elementary and middle school. This chapter is not about this. I’m taking a bit of a different approach. This podcast is about language art (emphasis on ‘language’). Language art is art that uses language to create an aesthetic response. It is the act of putting words together in certain ways to create a certain effect.comedy monologspoemscreative fictionspersonal essaysnovels/novellastwitter storiesletterssong lyricsvideo writingcreative fictionsautobiographiesmemoirsgreeting cardscomic stripscomic bookspodcastsmovie and tv scriptsplaysspeechesshort storiesblogscolumn writingflash fiction (micro fiction)rap

The impact of academic standards on students’ ability to write is questionable. Some believe that they impede more than enhance effective writing instruction. However, academic standards are part of our current educational life, thus this podcast I will (a) present some ideas for evaluating and assessing academic standards related to writing and (b) describe how you might pragmatically document students’ mastery of them. We will start by defining our terms. An academic standard defines what you want students to know or be able to do in a general sense. Benchmarks in education are the products or performances used to determine if students have met a standard. Benchmarks must be measurable or observable. This means it could be a student product found in a portfolio or a measure of that product using a checklist or rubric. Benchmarks are used to help you meet the standard and to document that the standard is being met.

The purpose of this podcast is to provide an overview of portfolios, checklists, and anecdotal records used to document students' growth as writers. These are some healthy alternatives to standardized tests, writing tests, and rubrics. Six points:1. To be of use; however, these healthy alternative assessment strategies must reflect your values, philosophy, teaching style, and students (Calkins, 1994). In other words, your system needs to be yours. You can’t assess effectively using somebody else’s system. Thus, I will present some simple ideas here with the expectation that you will discuss them with your colleagues and use them to develop your own assessment system.2. Your assessment system is not a permanent entity. Expect that it will evolve and change over time as you get more knowledge and experience.3. An effective assessment system utilizes multiple forms of assessment. Include multiple kinds of data. No single assessment strategy should be used exclusively.4. Big picture – The role of a parent and teacher is to become obsolete. You want to prepare students for the world they will encounter such that you are no longer needed. Similarly, the role of good assessment is to become obsolete – to prepare students to evaluate their own work. Thus, an important part of assessment is to teach students how to assess their own work (Graves, 1992).5. Students should be involved in the assessment process. It should be something students do, not just something that’s done to them (see below).

Why do we assess? For what purpose? In terms of writing, I hope the answer is this: We assess so that we can help students become better writers. If not, we’re wasting our time. We assess to determine strengths to build upon and weaknesses to address. We assess to document growth. But ultimately, we assess to find out what we can do to help students become better writers. However, too often assessment is used to “hold teachers accountable”. Ugh. Why is it that some groups continue this war against teachers and insist on the de-professionalization of education? Hold teachers accountable? We want intelligent, creative teachers to enter the field – but then we treat them like young, way-ward adolescents. We don’t trust them. We think we need to hold them accountable. We tell them what they must teach and how they must teach it. We assign standards and measures that must be used. Maybe we should give them a curfew as well. That’s it, let’s give all teachers a curfew and a mandatory bedtime – and restrict their TV watching and phone access if test scores fall below a certain percentage. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Certainly. However, what happens when groups continually try to hold teachers accountable? Teachers teach to the accountability measure. In other words, they teach to the test. I mean, who wouldn’t? The result of this accountability nonsense is that instead of testing what is taught, teachers teach what is tested. This is called ass-backwards in some circles. Utter clownery in other circles. With such ass-backward clownery, the curriculum becomes narrowed, focusing only on that which can be measured and quantified by an external entity

This podcast will clarify a couple of un-understandings related to whole language reading instruction:(1) Cueing is NOT an approach to reading instruction.(2) We do NOT teach children to guess as words.(3) Tinfoil hats do NOT keep the FBI from reading your mind.

The Four Nonsensical Statements Related to Whole Language: (1) Whole language has been debunked. Nope. Hasn't happened. If so, send me a research study. Not data. Not something somebody else has said, but a research study published in a peer-reviewed academic journal debunking whole language. (2) Phonics is more effective than whole language. That's like saying long division is more effective than mathematics. Phonics is something that’s taught. It’s not a method or an approach. Whole language is an understanding of the reading process and how the brain creates meaning with print. (3) Whole language teachers don’t teach phonics. They do. It’s not the ‘what’ but the ‘how’ and the ‘how much” of phonics in which we differ from our skills-first brothers and sisters. (4) Whole language teachers teach children to guess at words. Wrong. They do not. Developing students’ ability to use semantics, grammar and word order, background information, along with letter clues to recognize words does not mean that we teach children to guess at words.

During the process of writing, students are taught if they don’t know how to spell a word, they should give it their best shot, or use enough letters to temporarily hold the idea until they come back and edit the piece. This is called temporary spelling. This is done so as not to ruin the flow of the writing. This enables students to focus on the higher-order thinking involved in the composing process. Also, young children are able to write before they have mastered conventional forms of spelling. And as described many placed in this book, editing for spelling as well as grammar and punctuation is step four of the five-step writing process.

Traditional grammar instruction takes an isolated approach. It describes the rules for conjugating verbs, un-dangling participles, and coordinating conjunctions. This is done in isolation, apart from real writing and speaking. This approach may be effective for completing grammar worksheets, but it does not address the process of communicating effectively. In other words, teaching grammar instruction apart from real writing does little to enhance the quality of students’ writing. Also, there is very little transfer into authentic writing and speaking.Instead, the rules of grammar should be taught in the context of students’ own writing. This is called an embedded approach. This is more impactful on students’ ability to use grammar correctly than teaching them in isolation, and it doesn’t get in the way of their real writing.

Chapter 1 - In which a nanny goat sings. Andy experiences an emotional trifecta: fear, shame, and disgust. He also discovers the time travel wires in his brain.

In this podcast, I examine (a) Ken Goodman, (b) penguins, (c) the psycholinguistic guessing game, (d) Emily Hanford, (e) American Public Media, (f) some flawed ideas about reading instruction, and (d) some flawed ideas about flawed ideas.

This current podcast looks at another un-understanding that has been fabricated out of tiny bits of ignorance, misconceptions, and intellectual sloth. This is the fallacy that whole language has somehow been debunked … that whole language is a failure … that research has proven whole language to be ineffective … I would again respond: nonsense, twaddle, and poppycock. So much nonsense, twaddle, and poppycock to address – Where does one begin? That perhaps would have been a good name for this series. In this podcast, I will first do a bit de-debunking of the great un-understanding related to whole language. Then I will provide a bit of information that might help to understand what whole language actually is.

This current podcast looks at another un-understanding that has been fabricated out of tiny bits of ignorance, misconceptions, and intellectual sloth. This is the fallacy that whole language has somehow been debunked … that whole language is a failure … that research has proven whole language to be ineffective … I would respond: nonsense, twaddle, and poppycock. So much nonsense, twaddle, and poppycock.In this podcast, I will first do a bit of de-debunking of the great un-understanding related to whole language. Then I will provide a bit of information that might help to understand what whole language actually is.

The premise that schools are failing, teachers are doing a horrible job, and professors like me are ruining America and sending our economy into decline, is a myth perpetuated by those with political and for-profit agendas. If you think I'm wrong, show me some research-based data showing said decline and some isolated variables. Show me some valid, reliable, comparable data, collected over time, that shows our schools are failing and that teachers are doing a horrible job. Give me some solid data that indicates that our schools are worse than they were 5, 10, 20, or 30 years ago. That data should not be based on your selected memory of what you think schools were like once upon a time, but some solid data with appropriate sample sizes, that represent the population to which you are seeking to generalize. As well, that data should not be cherry-picked to support your predetermined belief. Causality should not be assigned to whatever issue you seem to take exception with.

This podcast describes the type of literacy learning environments and instruction that enable young children to develop their full writing potential. In a good literacy learning environment there is (a) lots of talk, (b) lots of writing, and (c) lots of reading. There is also direct and systematic instruction done in the context of authentic writing.

In the usual practice of academia, research is used to create theories. Theories are then used to explain a set of facts and to understand phenomena. And as new data is encountered and as old theories become obsolete, these theories either evolve or are they’re replaced by new theories. This is the natural way of things. All along the way, there is plenty of rigorous academic debate and respectful discourse over the research conducted and the application of theories.However, as I write this, the Science of Reading Clown Club is doing what any clown club would do when they can’t win an argument based on merits; they are lobbying state legislatures to force teacher preparation programs at all colleges and universities in the state of Minnesota to include Clown Club principles in their curriculum.The Science of Reading clown Club is an interesting bit of paradox that appears to be based on a misunderstanding of both science and reading.

Writing emerges naturally as children are exposed to real-life writing, as they use writing for real-life experiences, and as other humans listen and respond to their ideas. The podcast explains.

In reviewing some schools’ RTI plans, a standardized reading achievement test is used as a screening device. Students are put in Tiers I, II, or III reading intervention groups based on their percentile ranking on standardized tests. For example, if you’re in the 10th percentile or below, you go to Tier III, the 40th percentile or below you go to Tier II, and the 60th percentile or below you go to Tier I.When you live in the world of standardized tests and percentile rankings, there is a normal distribution of scores that is beautifully displayed in the bell-shaped curve. Here, half the population is reading below average. That’s called a normal population or a normal distribution of scores. But if everybody was reading above average, eventually average would become below average and above average would become average, and below average would become really below average. In a normal distribution of scores, half the students in a school should score below average. That’s called normal. That doesn’t mean that we don’t give each and every student the help they need so that they’re reading, writing, and doing math at their very best. We want all students to achieve grade-level standards. It is an excellent goal, but at the same time, it’s an unrealistic goal.

A learning disability only exists within a school environment. Outside the narrow confines of school, I’ve seen many with identified learning disabilities being highly successful in their professional and personal lives. This was only after shaking off the stigma of the label that had been given to them by the educational system. How dare we define anybody’s potential. What is defined as a learning disability is really an educational disability. How about if we significantly down-size the special education system, create smaller class sizes, provide better working conditions, and give teachers the professional development opportunities they need to be able to include inclusive learning environments with differentiated instruction

MTSS or Multi-tiered systems of support claims to be based on scientific research and use only evidence-based practices. MTSS originated in the swamps of Special Ed World. PBIS (positive behavioral interventions and supports) and ABA (applied behavioral analysis) are used with MTSS to make some behaviors disappear and others appeart. Magic. Claims are made that these are “evidence-based”.

Can a practice really be said to be evidence-based if it only looks at a certain type of evidence? Can it really be scientifically-based reading research if only certain methods are allowed to ask certain types of questions? And that’s the whole problem with the liturgical chants of “evidence” and “evidence-based” and “scientifically-based research” made by the Science of Reading Comedy Club to support a litany of practice taken from their direct-instruction Holy Book.That’s the whole problem in Special Ed World with their declaration of faith stating that only practices used to manipulate and control behavior are “evidence-based”. These represent a simplistic understanding of research in the social sciences. Within Special Ed World and the Science of Reading Comedy Club, and even the US Department of Education, controlled experimental studies (CES) are thought to be the only way of establishing causal relationships, that one thing causes the other thing to happen.

In the education world, the term “evidence-based” is often thrown around carelessly and used to end the discussion. But the question I would posit (and pardon me for being so inquisitive) is this: When you say a practice or strategy is “evidence-based” have you actually looked at the evidence of the evidence-base? Or are you just using the term because you heard somebody else use it?

There’s a difference between collecting data and research. While the research process includes data collection, collecting data is not research. The research process includes data. But collecting data is not research. In the world of science and academia, research is not research unless and until it has been subjected to blind peer review. Collecting data is not research. Confusing data with research is a common practice in the for-profit realm. Confusing data with research is a common practice with those who have a political or ideological agenda. Confusing data with research is a common practice those outside of education.