Latest / The Reading Instruction Show / Reading Wars and the Education Science Reform Act of 2002

Transcript

Reading Wars and the Education Science Reform Act of 2002 · The Reading Instruction Show

0:00
This is The Reading Instruction Show. I am your
0:03
host, Dr. Andy Johnson. The topic of today's
0:07
podcast is about reading instruction and think
0:14
tanks and having differences and other stuff
0:18
like that. Let's just jump right into it and
0:21
see if we can learn a little something today.
0:24
Now, humans are a most interesting species. we
0:29
walk around with some of the nuttiest ideas bouncing
0:32
around in our head. But according to the Education
0:37
Science Reform Act of 2002, the ideas in our
0:41
head cannot be said to exist because they're
0:45
not based on quote, systematic empirical methods
0:49
that draw on observation or experiment unquote.
0:54
So, It's more accurate to say that we walk around
0:58
with a variety of types of electrical activities
1:02
in our cerebral cortex. Neurons connect with
1:06
other neurons to form and strengthen neural pathways.
1:11
And neural networks are activated and expand
1:14
to create some pretty interesting networks. And
1:18
if we really want to use empirical methods drawn
1:21
on observation or experiment as our ontological
1:25
standard, we might even say that humans are merely
1:30
skin bags full of chemicals sloshing about. But
1:34
sometimes the chemicals are a little off. They
1:36
may be too much of one thing and not enough of
1:40
the other. And when this happens, The neural
1:43
networks branch off in unintended directions.
1:48
Other times we pour, inject, smoke, or ingest
1:52
various chemicals into our skin bags. And when
1:56
this happens, our neural networks can come up
1:59
with all sorts of shit. Which is a long -winded
2:04
way of saying that people hold a variety of positions
2:08
related to reading instruction. natural human
2:13
tendency. It seems that whenever a person takes
2:18
a position on something, there's this natural
2:22
human tendency to want to go out into the world
2:26
and convince others of the rightness of their
2:29
views and the wrongness of others. We insist
2:34
that if they just had our knowledge and could
2:37
see things our way, They'd understand and all
2:42
the problems would be solved. It's so simple
2:46
really. We just get the knowledge in our heads
2:50
into their heads. Then they would see things
2:55
the right way, which is our way, and the problem
2:58
would be solved. So we spend our time talking.
3:03
We talk loudly. We talk a lot. We talk over people.
3:07
We talk and talk and talk. And I admit that I
3:12
am as guilty of this as the next person regarding
3:15
this natural human tendency. I am convinced that
3:21
people who have vastly differing ideas from me
3:25
are misguided and full of baloney. But at the
3:30
same time, I realize that they're convinced of
3:33
the same about me. And it's all good. Like frogs
3:39
in a pond, having different views on things can
3:44
be a sign of a healthy academic ecosystem. But
3:48
only if the entities within the system are willing
3:52
to listen to differing ideas and continually
3:57
reflect on and evaluate their own. This is what
4:03
enables us to evolve our thinking. Now differences
4:10
become problematic when people create bubbles
4:15
around themselves to insulate their group from
4:18
all these, quote, bad ideas. This results in
4:24
an inbreeding of ideas that can lead to some
4:28
rather disturbing mutations. And you ask, are
4:33
we talking about politics, religion, or reading
4:36
instruction? and I would say all of the above.
4:41
Academic discourse. In academia, having differing
4:47
ideas about things is a good thing. The greater
4:53
academy is based on having differing ideas followed
4:57
by argument. And as stated before, argument here
5:02
is not the yelling disagreeing kind. Rather,
5:07
it's the academic kind, where you state your
5:10
case and support your position using reason and
5:14
research. We don't try to silence opposing ideas.
5:21
We don't try to demean opposing ideas. We let
5:26
our ideas carry the day, not the volume of our
5:30
voices or the harshness of our words. And this
5:34
has worked pretty well in academia. You put forth
5:39
an idea and you expect lively discussion. And
5:44
at the end of the day, the idea is supported
5:48
or rejected. Within the academy at large, you
5:54
conduct research or write an academic article
5:57
and submit it to a jury of your peers. These
6:01
are experts in your field. who do a blind peer
6:05
review. This means your name is removed from
6:09
the article so the jury won't know who wrote
6:13
it. And the names of the jury are concealed as
6:17
well. And it's either accepted or rejected based
6:22
on the quality of your work. And if it's accepted,
6:27
it will be published. It then becomes available
6:30
to all in the field, who then can conduct research
6:34
or write articles to either support or refute
6:38
your ideas. The same process is used for conference
6:43
presentations and book contracts. Your work becomes
6:48
public. People react to your ideas using research
6:52
and reason. Then they go on to make careers,
6:55
explaining to other people how right or wrong
6:58
you are. However, they do this using reason and
7:04
research. And it was a pretty good system until
7:09
it wasn't. Today the words of a journalist carry
7:14
more weight than that of a serious scholar in
7:16
the field. Journalists are even invited to speak
7:21
at academic conferences. What's up with that?
7:28
The reading was. As stated before, there never
7:33
was a reading ward in the academic field known
7:37
as literacy instruction. The term reading wars
7:42
was coined by the media. Now you might see this
7:47
term used in academic circles today, but it originated
7:52
outside the field of literacy instruction. There
7:57
wasn't a reading war until the media decided
8:01
they wanted to invent one. Instead, there was
8:05
a natural clash of theories as psycholinguistic
8:09
reading theory began to emerge and expand in
8:14
the 70s and 80s. And like all theories, this
8:19
new theory didn't show up fully formed. It took
8:23
a while for it to grow and to take shape. and
8:26
it continues to evolve to this day as new research
8:30
knowledge is generated. Now let's take a look
8:34
at basals. This new emerging theory began to
8:39
crowd out the behavioral learning theories of
8:42
the day which were used to support a basal approach
8:46
to reading instruction. And a basal is the name
8:50
used for a teacher's manual for reading instruction.
8:54
It's called a basal because it was originally
8:59
designed to deliver a base level of reading instruction.
9:04
And when I started teaching second grade in 1983,
9:09
teachers were given basals. We used our basals
9:13
to deliver a scripted reading program to students
9:17
who sat passively at kidney -shaped tables so
9:21
they could be learned at. Learning was something
9:25
we did to children, not something children did.
9:30
These Basel reading programs contained a variety
9:33
of skill and drill activities, round -robin read
9:36
-alouds, an approved canon of leveled stories,
9:41
and comprehension questions focusing on the recall
9:45
of story details. Sadly, the current science
9:51
of reading mandates have us rushing forward to
9:54
the past. In 1983, I followed the basal and taught
10:01
all the skills. I met all my behavioral objectives.
10:05
The students completed all the worksheets and
10:08
most of them passed the end of the unit test.
10:11
And I thought I was a good reading teacher because
10:15
I was doing what the teacher's manual told me
10:18
to do. And it wasn't until I saw a good reading
10:23
workshop classroom that I realized how incredibly
10:28
wrong I was. Meaning -based approaches. Theories
10:35
aren't designed to be eternal entities. They
10:39
exist for as long as they continue to explain
10:43
facts and help us understand phenomena. Then
10:48
they either evolve or slowly fade away. And it's
10:53
natural to have multiple explanations of the
10:57
same thing. This does not mean there's a war.
11:02
It means there's an academic discussion going
11:05
on. Bottom -up theories of reading and behavioral
11:10
learning theories began to be replaced by interactive
11:13
reading theories, psycholinguistic reading theories,
11:17
and constructivist learning theories. These resulted
11:21
in a variety of meaning -based approaches to
11:24
literacy instruction, such as reading workshop,
11:27
writing workshop, and literature -based reading
11:30
instruction. And not only were these effective,
11:36
but they were infinitely more enjoyable for teachers
11:41
and students. And they did not cause scores to
11:47
go down. And when I say this, the user responses,
11:52
oh yeah? Well, show me the research. And I say,
11:56
show you the research for what? Show me the research
12:00
that proves that whole language didn't cause
12:03
reading scores to go down. Well, first, you can't
12:08
disprove a negative through research. Second,
12:11
a single study or even a couple of studies doesn't
12:14
prove anything. That's a simplistic understanding
12:18
of research. Third, there is no the research
12:22
that's read like a holy canon. Fourth, we've
12:26
been showing you the research all along. But
12:29
anecdotal evidence that journalists have a louder
12:32
voice than a body of research and research scholars.
12:36
Fifth, the proposition that whole language caused
12:40
reading scores to go down. That was the proposition.
12:43
The onus is on the proposition maker to support
12:47
it. And sixth, searching for causes by making
12:53
random correlations to things occurring at the
12:55
same time. is superstition, not science. Again,
13:03
there never was a reading war. A war assumes
13:07
there are two armies meeting on a field of battle,
13:10
and this didn't happen. But there was a reading
13:15
coup. There was a hostile takeover of the field
13:19
of literacy instruction by profiteers who saw
13:23
public education as their own private ATM machine.
13:28
This group of profiteers is part of the educational
13:32
industrial complex, and it includes Cambria Lexi
13:36
learning, Pearson education, Cengage learning,
13:40
McGraw -Hill education, Voyager Sopras learning,
13:44
TAL education group Bright Horizons, and such.
13:49
They're armies of well -paid toadies, or consultants,
13:54
Promise schools simple solutions to complex problems.
13:59
Just buy our shiny new products, they say. Pay
14:02
for our services, they say. Get trained by our
14:05
experts, they say. And all your literacy problems
14:09
will go away. All your students will be reading
14:12
above grade level. Well, I don't know, the school
14:16
says. That's a lot of money. Look they say look
14:20
at all the colorful charts and graphs look at
14:23
all the pretty pretty numbers Well, the school
14:27
says you do have numbers that must mean the real
14:31
Wouldn't you like to have colorful charts and
14:34
graphs like this? Wouldn't you like wouldn't
14:39
wouldn't you like that? Wouldn't you like to
14:43
have pretty pretty numbers? Yes, the school says
14:46
yes, I would And that, my friends, is how education
14:51
lost its soul. Think tanks, the hostile takeover
14:56
of literacy instruction, also included those
15:00
who wanted to control public education for their
15:03
own political or philosophical purposes. These
15:08
includes conservative organizations, such as
15:12
American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation,
15:16
Brookings Institute, Rand Corporation, and the
15:19
Thomas B. Fordham Institute. However, there can't
15:24
be a lot of thinking going on in these think
15:26
tanks if you're expected to come to predetermined
15:30
conclusions about things. For all their questions,
15:35
they have a predetermined list of answers. For
15:39
all their problems, They have a predetermined
15:44
list of solutions. These include privatization,
15:48
testing, accountability, competition, mandated
15:52
curriculum, mandated teaching strategies and
15:55
approaches, getting rid of unions, parental control,
15:59
charter schools, prayer in the school, vouchers,
16:02
and the Ten Commandments. These think tanks fund
16:08
these non... fund non -profit organizations who
16:13
then claim their non -profit status as a badge
16:16
of objectivity. However, these non -profit organizations
16:21
would lose their special funding friends in a
16:24
heartbeat if their think tanks didn't bark like
16:29
trained seals. Now let's look at the Education
16:33
Science Reform Act. In the 80s and 90s, there
16:37
was an influx of qualitative research and education.
16:41
Brian Camborn, Shirley Bryce Heath, and others
16:44
helped us go beyond the numbers to understand
16:48
the people behind the numbers. The lens of qualitative
16:54
research enabled us to see things that simply
16:58
were not visible when looking through the narrow
17:01
lens of controlled experimental research. Instead
17:06
of measuring, quantifying, and comparing, qualitative
17:12
researchers used observations, interviews, action
17:16
research, surveys, ethnographies, grounded theory,
17:20
case studies, and phenomenology. The result was
17:24
that real people began to appear on the pages
17:29
of our academic journals. These real people were
17:34
much more than pre - and post -test numbers.
17:39
The real people moved from being subjects to
17:43
participants, and the quiet voices of teachers,
17:48
students, and parents began to be heard. As the
17:53
who's in Whoville said in Horton Hears a Who,
17:57
we are here. The rich conversations that were
18:02
taking place within the Academy in the 90s were
18:05
disrupted by the Education Science Reform Act
18:09
of 2002. The federal government made a decree
18:15
declaring what research in education must be.
18:21
The result was a narrow, parochial view of educational
18:24
research. Only knowledge generated by controlled
18:29
experimental research was counted as valid. Only
18:34
projects and programs supported by this very
18:38
restricted view of educational research would
18:41
be funded. It wasn't long before the Who's and
18:46
Whoville were squashed by a giant federal Grinch
18:52
foot. The Education Science Reform Act of 2002
18:58
represents a simplistic understanding of research
19:02
in the social sciences. It says that research
19:06
methods used to study bacteria in a petri dish
19:10
must be used to study children in a classroom.
19:15
Controlled experimental studies is the only way
19:18
of establishing causal relationships, it says.
19:23
And the result was that researchers began asking
19:27
only questions that could be answered by controlled
19:31
experimental research. Questions like, is this
19:36
thing better than that thing? And does this thing
19:38
make scores go up? The frogs are no longer chirping
19:44
in the ponds. We don't have the healthy academic
19:48
ecosystem we once had. This has been The Reading
19:53
Instruction Show. I'm your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.