Latest / The Reading Instruction Show / John Stossel: My Adventure in Television – Part I

Transcript

John Stossel: My Adventure in Television – Part I · The Reading Instruction Show

0:00
This is The Reading Instruction Show. I am your
0:03
host, Dr. Andy Johnson. Topic of today's show
0:08
is called John Stossel, My Adventure in Television.
0:15
Now on August 8th, 2025, I was sitting in my
0:19
basement writing my next New York Times best
0:23
-selling book about reading instruction when
0:26
I got an email. Bing! and it said, Hi, Dr. Johnson,
0:31
my name is Dan Stefano. Dan Stefano, Stefano,
0:35
I'm a producer with John Stossel for Stossel
0:38
TV. We're doing a story on the literacy crisis
0:42
in America and it came across your advocacy for
0:46
whole word reading instruction and would like
0:49
to get your take on the subject. If you're interested,
0:54
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay? Now, I'm
0:57
often very naive about things, but I'm not naive
1:02
enough to think John Stasso really wanted my
1:07
take, quote unquote, on anything. He didn't really
1:13
want to understand the literacy crisis or anything
1:16
related to literacy. He had no real interest
1:21
in my thoughts on any issue. He was looking for
1:26
good TV. And because I drink 15 plus cups of
1:32
coffee a day, and I tend to be a bit over -excitable,
1:36
I am good TV. And when I really get worked up,
1:41
I wave my arms in the air and twitch a lot, and
1:45
my voice goes up a couple octaves. Picture an
1:49
over -caffeinated Barney Fife. Nip it, nip it.
1:53
Nip it in the bud. Good TV. It was obvious from
2:00
the message that the sender that Dan sent that
2:05
Dan didn't know much about reading instruction.
2:08
And this is not an uncommon occurrence for those
2:13
entering into the science of reading discussion
2:15
from the outside. Here is my very polite response
2:20
to Dan. Hi, Dan. I'd be happy to do an interview,
2:25
but it is not whole word reading instruction.
2:29
This doesn't exist. I can talk about whole language,
2:33
meaning -based instruction, or balanced literacy.
2:37
I don't know of anybody who currently advocates
2:40
whole word instruction. Okay, blah, blah, blah,
2:44
blah, blah. So, whole word instruction. Let's
2:49
look at this. I... I'm not quite sure what whole
2:53
word reading instruction is, and I'm an alleged
2:58
reading expert. John Stossel also brought this
3:02
up during the interview, so let me try to clarify.
3:07
First, the look -say approach. In the early 60s,
3:12
there was something called the look -say approach,
3:16
and this That may have been the reference that
3:20
Dan Stefano was making. Now here, children were
3:25
taught to read by having them recognize entire
3:30
words as single units, instead of sounding out
3:35
the individual letters. Common words were introduced,
3:40
then repeated many times in simple sentences
3:43
using what's called a controlled vocabulary.
3:49
The Dick and Jane series, published by Scott
3:52
Forsman and Company from 1930 to 1965, was used
3:58
for this. And you can see see some of the scintillating
4:04
dialogue from these posts you can listen to it
4:07
here it is look dick look jane see baby see see
4:13
oh oh oh dick look see see baby there was a lot
4:19
of looking and seeing back then and this was
4:24
my reading instruction back in 1963 that's the
4:29
look -say approach now Sight words. There are
4:34
these things called sight words. And I tried
4:39
to explain this during the interview. Sight words
4:43
are the words that students recognize instantly
4:47
on sight without having to use letter cues, word
4:53
parts, or context clues. These words can be found
4:58
on lists of most common words or most frequent
5:01
words that include the 100 to 200 words that
5:05
students encounter most often in print. And these
5:09
are comprised mostly of function words. That
5:14
is, they have little or no lexical meaning. They're
5:17
things such as pronouns and prepositions. and
5:21
instead they express a grammatical or a structural
5:24
relation with other words. There are several
5:28
most common word lists. Dolsch, Frey, and Zeno
5:33
are the most common, and they're all relatively
5:37
similar. It doesn't really matter which one you
5:41
use. I tend to use the Zeno word list, and these
5:45
are 107. words that students will encounter most
5:50
often in text. Now, attention to sight words
5:55
should be part of a reading or reading instruction
6:00
for beginning readers. And three reasons for
6:04
this, for attending to sight words. First, recognizing
6:07
words instantly frees up cognitive space that
6:12
can be allocated to creating meaning. Second,
6:18
words stored in long -term memory can be used
6:23
to help students recognize and identify words
6:26
in print with similar letter patterns. And third,
6:31
having a large store of sight words enhances
6:34
reading fluency. Whole language! Whole language
6:40
is a language learning theory! Both whole language
6:45
and whole word have the word whole in them, but
6:50
that's the only similarity. It has nothing to
6:53
do with whole word reading. So, whole word reading
6:57
instruction. Whole word reading instruction is
7:02
not something that I or anybody that I know advocates.
7:08
There is no significant whole -word reading instruction
7:13
occurring today. It doesn't exist. Oh, maybe
7:18
there are seven or eight around the country someplace.
7:21
But nonetheless, John Stossel still wanted my
7:25
take on something because I was contacted two
7:29
months later and flown out to New York City.
7:34
So... I want to say up front, I was treated very
7:38
respectfully by John Stossel, Dan DeStefano,
7:43
and all the staff. And even though the interview
7:46
was designed to be one of those gotcha interviews,
7:50
I found John and his staff to be respectful during
7:53
the questioning in that he allowed me to answer
7:57
the questions. And it shows that you can be against
8:01
something, you can disagree vehemently, and you
8:06
can even have an interview designed to highlight
8:10
the flaws or inconsistencies of another. But
8:14
you don't have to be disrespectful. So John or
8:18
Dan, if you hear this, thank you for that. Thus
8:22
said, I have no doubt that the interview will
8:27
go through some creative edits, and that I'll
8:31
be portrayed in a less than stellar light. And
8:39
I know there will be some convenient, inaccurate
8:43
things said before or after the interview, and
8:47
these things will make me look misguided or even
8:54
foolish. I knew this going in. That's how the
8:59
game is played. And I'm okay with this for two
9:04
reasons. First, it gives me something to write
9:09
about. And oddly, I seem to have no shortage
9:13
of things to write about lately. And second,
9:17
this is illustrative of what's occurring on a
9:21
larger level with Emily Hanford and all the Hanford
9:25
wannabes. The purpose of these kinds of interviews
9:30
is not to transmit information or to understand
9:35
the issues. Rather, it's to elicit an emotional
9:41
reaction. This, in turn, leads to substantial
9:45
speaking fees and other opportunities. And by
9:50
the way, I don't think Emily Hanford will be
9:53
greatly impacted by cuts in the SNAP program.
9:59
A libertarian, John Stossel is described online
10:02
as an American libertarian television presenter,
10:06
author, consumer, journalist, political activist,
10:10
and pundit. I always wondered what a pundit is.
10:13
How do you get to be a pundit? Is there a pundit
10:15
school someplace? He has a podcast called The
10:19
John Stossel Interviews, and I'm guessing this
10:22
is where an edited version of our discussion
10:25
will appear. Now, to get a sense of John Stossel's
10:31
speaking fees, I contacted LAI Speakers, this
10:36
is Leading Authorities, Inc. This is a speaking
10:40
bureau, and I told the person that I was with
10:43
a group called Liberty Minnesota, which is true,
10:48
I am with the group, there are like two of us,
10:50
and was interested in having John Stossel do
10:53
a keynote address. They sent me a quote which
10:58
was 75k! And this included expenses and first
11:04
-class air travel. Now, I realized two things.
11:10
First, making good TV is certainly more lucrative
11:14
than being a literacy professor. How silly of
11:19
me! to spend five years earning my PhD and 30
11:23
years teaching and doing scholarly work, when
11:27
I could have been making good TV and doing keynotes
11:31
for 75k a pop, and secondly I need to ask for
11:36
better airline seats next time. When they flew
11:39
me out I was literally in the very last row of
11:43
the airplane. So I bring up his 75k speaking
11:49
feed, not because I think it's a bad thing. For
11:55
75k, I give you a keynote speech and dance like
11:59
a chicken. I bring it up because everything in
12:03
this science of reading conversation must be
12:07
understood in the context of money. Money, whether
12:12
received directly or indirectly, is used to influence
12:17
reading policy. Those with more money dictate
12:23
what information is presented, how it's interpreted,
12:27
and how things are perceived. Those with less
12:33
money are silenced. So the way to get heard is
12:38
really quite simple. more money. Now let's take
12:45
a look at the interview. In the next couple podcasts,
12:50
I'll be highlighting different parts of this
12:52
interview. Right now I'm doing this from memory.
12:56
When I see the final interview product, I'll
12:59
be able to respond more specifically. But confirmation,
13:05
bias, and data resistance. It was clear that
13:10
his staff did some background research to prepare
13:13
for the interview. It was clear as well that
13:17
the staff had a hardy case of confirmation bias.
13:22
This occurs when someone begins with strong beliefs
13:26
and sees only information that confirms with
13:30
their beliefs. In other words, they see what
13:35
they're looking for and they don't see what they're
13:37
not looking for. In this case, they were looking
13:41
for data to show how wrong I was about reading
13:45
instruction. And this made them data resistant
13:49
to any data that might have showed how right
13:52
I was about reading instruction. So, a false
13:58
literacy crisis. John Stossel kept insisting,
14:02
that there was a literacy crisis, and he would
14:07
not be convinced otherwise. After all, he had
14:11
a chart in front of him showing such a thing.
14:15
And I tried explaining the difference between
14:18
norm reference and criterion reference tests.
14:22
Norm reference tests compare students' test scores
14:26
to a normal population. Test scores of a large
14:32
representative sample of students are collected
14:34
so that comparisons can be made with students
14:38
at similar grade levels. If it's a normal population,
14:45
you get the familiar bell -shaped curve. For
14:50
example, if Mary was in 3rd grade and her reading
14:54
scores were at the 80th percentile, it would
14:57
mean that she scored higher than 80 % of all
15:01
3rd grade students. And you would know, with
15:06
absolute mathematical precision, just how far
15:11
she was away from average. In this case, Mary
15:16
was 30%. away from average, which is the 50th
15:22
percentile. And she was on the good side of that.
15:27
Now, if you used a norm reference test with a
15:30
bell -shaped curve, by definition, 50 % are above
15:34
the median average and 50 % are below the median
15:39
average. But that's far different from saying
15:42
that 50 % of students are reading below average
15:46
or reading below grade level. Instead, 50 % read
15:53
below the median average, and this is called
15:58
normal and is to be expected in a normal population.
16:05
Now the National Assessment of Educational Progress,
16:08
NAEP, is part of the U .S. Department of Education.
16:12
They've been putting out test data since 1971,
16:16
and you can visit their website to get the particulars.
16:20
Their norm reference tests are given to students
16:24
in 4th, 8th, and 12th grade. Test scores are
16:29
broken down by states and subjects as well as
16:32
by various subgroups such as race, ethnicity,
16:37
SES, gender, and school type. And since the test
16:42
is the same, the same test is used, comparisons
16:46
can be made over time, as well as between states
16:50
and among subgroups. And these are useful in
16:55
tracking national trends, but not for assigning
17:00
causality. Correlation does not infer causation.
17:05
If a test score goes down, you cannot say, ah,
17:08
it's because of that. You can't do that. But
17:12
if there were a literacy crisis, which there
17:17
is not, NAEP data would show a graph with the
17:22
scores that looked like a ski hill going down,
17:27
or even a slight hill constantly going down.
17:31
It would not look like how they are, which is
17:36
from 1971 until 2020, scores were consistent
17:43
or maybe even rising a little bit. Yes, there
17:46
was the natural fluxation of scores, absolutely,
17:50
but there simply is no reading crisis. And the
17:55
question asked, and then John Stossel asked this,
17:58
well, how come they're not getting better? That's
18:02
not the way it works, John. That's not the way
18:06
they work. So if there's an imaginary test and
18:12
the scores were 500, and that's the score range,
18:16
you would expect these scores to continually
18:18
be climbing all the time? That's just not the
18:23
way it works. Now, criterion reference tests.
18:26
With criterion reference tests, students are
18:29
not compared to a normal population or even an
18:33
abnormal population. They're compared to a set
18:36
of criteria that somebody has arbitrarily defined.
18:42
And these criteria are aspirational, not mathematical.
18:48
Meaning they represent what a group of people
18:51
has decided that students at each grade level
18:55
should be able to know or do. In other words,
19:01
they're based on I -THINK -isms. I think third
19:05
graders should know this and fourth graders should
19:08
know that. And this means that students' achievement
19:12
can easily go up or down simply by changing aspirations,
19:18
categories, or test content. Thus, you cannot
19:24
compare the results from a criterion reference
19:27
exam in one state with the results from a criterion
19:30
reference test in another state. Two different
19:34
tests, two different states, two different criteria,
19:37
two different measures, two different populations.
19:41
And you cannot compare the results of criterion
19:44
reference tests over time if the tests differ,
19:48
and they usually do. They change. Okay, this
19:52
has been the end of part one. I will give you
19:55
some more parts of the John Stossel interview
20:00
later. This has been Andy Johnson and this has
20:03
been The Reading Instruction Show.