Latest / The Reading Instruction Show / Dyslexia Summits, Disinvitations, and Abrasiveness

Transcript

Dyslexia Summits, Disinvitations, and Abrasiveness · The Reading Instruction Show

• 0:00
  This is The Reading Instruction Show. I'm your
• 0:03
  host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson. Topic of today's
• 0:07
  show, dyslexia summits, disinvitation, and abrasiveness.
• 0:15
  Now, a couple months ago, I recorded an online
• 0:18
  interview for a dyslexia summit. I also put together
• 0:23
  and recorded a short video presentation. These
• 0:27
  were both. to be shown at a dyslexia summit.
• 0:32
  I'd agreed to then be present online at the summit
• 0:36
  for a live question and answer session. But I
• 0:41
  discovered on the day of the summit that I was
• 0:45
  disinvited. Imagine that. My invitation was rescinded,
• 0:52
  withdrawn, taken away, revoked, recalled, annulled.
• 0:58
  without so much as a disinviting word. No, it's
• 1:03
  not really a big deal. I hadn't prepared a large
• 1:08
  presentation and I didn't make travel plans,
• 1:13
  but the fact remains I was disinvited. I was
• 1:17
  first invited and then I was not. Disinvitations
• 1:23
  are not an unexpected occurrence for those whose
• 1:26
  views don't align with the current science of
• 1:29
  reading view on things. And as I said, it's not
• 1:33
  a big deal. So if it's not a big deal, why are
• 1:36
  you writing about it? He asked. I'm writing because
• 1:40
  it's illustrative of a larger trend. The stated
• 1:46
  reason for my disinvitation was that the writing
• 1:52
  tone used on some of my digital platforms is
• 1:56
  quote, fairly abrasive when speaking about those
• 2:00
  and other camps in the reading world unquote.
• 2:05
  Abrasive tones and reading camps, both of these
• 2:11
  need a bit of unpacking and exploring and explaining.
• 2:15
  In this podcast, I'll be looking just at abrasive
• 2:20
  writing tones, and in the next, I'll examine
• 2:23
  reading camps. So let's take a look at abrasive
• 2:27
  writing tones. First, a bit of context is necessary.
• 2:33
  We live in a time when it has become acceptable
• 2:37
  to attack those who have differing views on things.
• 2:41
  Those who've been unable to sustain their arguments
• 2:45
  regarding effective reading instruction have
• 2:48
  resorted to distortion, mischaracterization,
• 2:53
  and convenient mistruths to make their case.
• 2:58
  They've tried to silence, belittle, demean, and
• 3:02
  even disinvite those who disagree. Teachers and
• 3:08
  administrators who do not fall in line with the
• 3:11
  science of reading mandates have been bullied
• 3:14
  and threatened. College professors are forced
• 3:18
  to teach what they know is untrue. And teachers
• 3:24
  are required to engage in what they know to be
• 3:27
  educational malpractice. This, my friends, is
• 3:32
  the context in which my tone was found to be,
• 3:36
  quote, fairly abrasive, unquote. Force compliance.
• 3:42
  To be clear, I was not disinvited because the
• 3:46
  information I put forth was inaccurate or incorrect.
• 3:52
  I was not - disinvited because I misinterpreted
• 3:57
  research or put forth decontextualized factoids.
• 4:03
  I was disinvited because the tone used in the
• 4:08
  dissemination of information was deemed to be,
• 4:12
  quote, fairly abrasive, unquote. This is rather
• 4:17
  telling, yes, fairly abrasive. But here's something
• 4:24
  that's really fairly abrasive. If I were not
• 4:29
  retiring in seven months, I'd be forced to go
• 4:33
  to a letters re -education camp. Here I'd be
• 4:37
  forced to listen to someone who's been specially
• 4:41
  trained with a letters training certificate.
• 4:44
  They'd lecture me about reading instruction.
• 4:49
  Now, I've been reading research and doing scholarly
• 4:53
  work related to reading instruction for over
• 4:56
  30 years. But since they're letters certified
• 5:02
  with training certificates who wear badges, I'd
• 5:07
  be forced to listen to them. And I'm sorry, is
• 5:11
  my tone abrasive here? How might I remove this
• 5:17
  abrasion so that I'm not disinvited to things?
• 5:21
  Is this why I don't get invited to birthday parties
• 5:24
  anymore? Is my tone more abrasive than the things
• 5:30
  Emily Hanford says? Is it more abrasive than
• 5:35
  the conveniently inaccurate statements and de
• 5:38
  -contextualized factoids? put out by Louisa Moats,
• 5:43
  Linnea Airy, Sally Schwartz, and Claude Goldenberg?
• 5:48
  Is it more abrasive than the tone used to inaccurately
• 5:53
  describe Lucy Calkins or Ken Goodman? Is it more
• 5:59
  abrasive than the state of Minnesota, forcing
• 6:03
  me to take any reference to the three -queuing
• 6:07
  system off my syllabus? At Minnesota State University,
• 6:14
  if certain terms are included in our syllabi,
• 6:19
  we risk accreditation. Now, the tone used to
• 6:24
  force us to comply may not be abrasive, but the
• 6:28
  resulting message certainly is. Pretty words
• 6:33
  that create a pleasant tone are used to threaten
• 6:37
  our accreditation. at least is mildly abrasive.
• 6:46
  Academic buzzwords. Yes, the term reeducation
• 6:51
  camp is a buzzword. It evokes an emotional response
• 6:57
  much like the stories, anecdotal evidence, and
• 7:01
  academic buzzwords used to convince state legislators
• 7:06
  to pass science of reading laws. The term is
• 7:11
  a reference to something that's been used by
• 7:14
  authoritarian regimes throughout history to indoctrinate
• 7:20
  perceived enemies of the state. And I think most
• 7:24
  people with a sixth grade education understand
• 7:28
  that this is a bit of purposeful exaggeration
• 7:32
  used to make a point. And the point is that the
• 7:37
  state of Minnesota has determined that I don't
• 7:40
  think the right way about reading instruction.
• 7:45
  Apparently, I don't believe the right things
• 7:48
  either. And if I weren't retiring, I'd be forced
• 7:53
  to endure 60 hours of letters training. But also
• 7:59
  classroom teachers in Minnesota are forced to
• 8:02
  spend 60 hours outside their normal teaching
• 8:06
  hours to get, quote, trained, unquote. Yes, it's
• 8:12
  an exaggerated comparison. Dr. Andy is to letters
• 8:16
  training as dissenters are to re -education camps
• 8:21
  in authoritarian regimes. Yes. But both letters
• 8:27
  training and re -education camps are examples
• 8:31
  of forced compliance that are used to produce
• 8:35
  right thinking and right behaviors. And I think
• 8:39
  this is an important point to try to get across.
• 8:44
  So is my tone abrasive? Well, I'm sure it is
• 8:49
  to those who don't want to hear what I have to
• 8:52
  say. Of course it feels abrasive if it conflicts
• 8:58
  with what you believe about things. As well,
• 9:02
  you will find my writing tone abrasive if it
• 9:05
  creates dissonance or threatens the black and
• 9:08
  white world that one has carefully constructed.
• 9:13
  But tell me this, riddle me this, Batman. How
• 9:18
  does one use pretty words to describe abrasive
• 9:22
  things? cognitive frameworks. The abrasiveness
• 9:28
  of a writing tone is determined largely by the
• 9:33
  cognitive framework held by the reader. Now a
• 9:37
  cognitive framework is the mentally constructed
• 9:40
  structures that guide individuals in interpreting
• 9:44
  the world. It becomes the lens through which
• 9:49
  the world is viewed and much like a theory, A
• 9:55
  cognitive framework is used to explain facts
• 9:58
  and understand phenomena. Some see my writing
• 10:04
  as abrasive and ill -informed. Others see my
• 10:08
  writing as non -abrasive and sometimes even insightful.
• 10:14
  Regardless of one's view, to silence, dismiss,
• 10:20
  or disinvite someone based on their perceived
• 10:25
  tone is, well, it's the science of reading. This
• 10:32
  has been The Reading Instruction Show. I am your
• 10:35
  host, Dr. Andy Johnson.