Latest / The Reading Instruction Show / Selective Umbrage: Emily Hanford is an Alexa App

Transcript

Selective Umbrage: Emily Hanford is an Alexa App · The Reading Instruction Show

• 0:00
  This is The Reading Instruction Show. I am your
• 0:03
  host, as always, the colorful one, Dr. Andy Johnson.
• 0:08
  Topic of today's podcast is called Selective
• 0:11
  Umbridge, full colon. Emily Hanford is an Alexa
• 0:15
  app. Now, in my podcasts, YouTubes, and online
• 0:20
  articles, I often use colorful metaphors for
• 0:23
  things or people. For example, penguins or phonics
• 0:27
  penguins. These are people who are obsessed with
• 0:31
  phonics instruction, who think that phonics is
• 0:35
  the solution for everything. Clowns are people
• 0:40
  who think they know a lot about reading instruction
• 0:43
  when in actuality they know very little. Number
• 0:48
  monkeys are people who think that all learning
• 0:52
  can be quantified. and that testing is the solution
• 0:57
  to an imaginary literacy crisis. We can test
• 1:01
  our way out of this imaginary crisis. Toadies
• 1:05
  are educational consultants whose knowledge is
• 1:10
  for sale, whose recommendations seem to align
• 1:14
  with those who are paying them. And zealots The
• 1:20
  word zealot is used to denote a person who is
• 1:23
  fanatical and uncompromising in their pursuit
• 1:26
  of religious, political, or other ideas. And
• 1:31
  the term zealot can be used to describe a person
• 1:34
  who is unwilling to make concessions or to change
• 1:39
  one's way of thinking, even when faced with overwhelming
• 1:44
  evidence. And zealotry is the best way to describe
• 1:48
  the impetus behind the current science of reading
• 1:52
  movement. Under the guise of good instruction,
• 1:56
  they've fabricated a reading crisis. And they
• 2:02
  used this fabrication to create laws that disempower
• 2:07
  classroom teachers. Teachers are forced to use
• 2:13
  scripted one -size -fits -all commercial reading
• 2:16
  programs that have no basis in research, but
• 2:21
  are instead firmly enmeshed in i -think -a -sons.
• 2:28
  Schools are forced to purchase for -profit teacher
• 2:32
  professional development programs that have no
• 2:35
  basis in legitimate research. Instead of investing
• 2:41
  in things that could actually impact learning,
• 2:45
  hundreds of millions of dollars in states are
• 2:49
  being wasted to pay for expensive commercial
• 2:53
  products and services. And of course I realize
• 2:57
  that not every single person who aligns with
• 3:01
  the current science of reading movement disregards
• 3:05
  scientific principles. not literally, not every
• 3:11
  single one of them. It's a bit of hyperbole,
• 3:15
  you see. From my experience, it seems a great
• 3:20
  many of them seem to do so. And not all science
• 3:25
  of reading enthusiasts are zealots, but a great
• 3:29
  many certainly display zealous behaviors. And
• 3:34
  if it walks like a zealot and quacks like a zealot,
• 3:39
  well. So, polite words, it brings me no joy to
• 3:46
  have to use colorful metaphors. Okay, it brings
• 3:49
  me a little joy. But for years, many of us have
• 3:53
  tried to use research and reason to make our
• 3:58
  case. But along comes Emily Hanford, a journalist.
• 4:04
  with a ready -made platform who just says stuff.
• 4:09
  And because of the emotional tug of what she
• 4:11
  says, people believe her. After all, listening
• 4:16
  to a radio documentary that provides simple answers
• 4:20
  is much easier than reading and assimilating
• 4:24
  a bunch of scholarly work with complexity and
• 4:28
  nuance. So when research and reason no longer
• 4:33
  work, you must try other things. So yes, occasionally
• 4:38
  I step out from behind my timid third -person
• 4:42
  objective voice. I use metaphors and analogy
• 4:46
  to create memorable images that seem to get through
• 4:51
  some of the haze of all that politely worded
• 4:55
  blabber. But the baseless accusations coming
• 5:01
  out of the politely worded blabber are much more
• 5:06
  offensive than a couple of my two -bit metaphors.
• 5:11
  Making teachers and professors public pinatas
• 5:15
  to whack about simply because they can't whack
• 5:18
  back is much more offensive than a couple of
• 5:23
  my poorly worded analogies. And tearing away
• 5:28
  at the fabric of public education and teacher
• 5:32
  autonomy is much more offensive than the names
• 5:36
  I have given to the fabric terrors. What about
• 5:41
  the children? They say in their soft pleading
• 5:46
  voices. What about the children? We must protect
• 5:50
  the children. Are my images, my words, are they
• 5:56
  offensive? Yes, we must protect the children,
• 6:01
  which is exactly why some of us fight so hard
• 6:05
  to get research -based reading instruction along
• 6:09
  with legitimate professional development and
• 6:13
  teacher autonomy back into our classrooms. Why
• 6:17
  we work so hard to get better working conditions
• 6:21
  and pay for teachers. Now, Louisa Moats regularly
• 6:27
  says that teachers are not knowledgeable. They
• 6:31
  don't know the right things. They're unprepared.
• 6:33
  They don't know how to teach reading, and professors
• 6:37
  aren't teaching the right things. Might this
• 6:41
  be a little offensive? And compare what I say
• 6:46
  to the subtle and often not -so -subtle statements
• 6:49
  made in inferences. Teachers are ignorant. Teachers
• 6:53
  aren't very smart. Teachers are lazy. Teachers
• 6:56
  don't know how to teach reading. Teachers need
• 6:59
  to be told how to teach reading. We can't trust
• 7:03
  teachers. We need to hold them accountable. We
• 7:06
  need to disempower them. Literacy professors
• 7:09
  are ignorant and teach the wrong things. Teachers
• 7:12
  have an agenda other than helping each child
• 7:15
  develop his or her full potential. Professors
• 7:18
  have an agenda other than educating students.
• 7:22
  Literacy professors aren't doing their job. We
• 7:25
  need to mandate certain things and outlaw other
• 7:27
  things. Yes, I know that it's unbecoming of a
• 7:35
  literacy professor. to make broad generalizations
• 7:39
  like I have. And I know that I should be better
• 7:42
  than that, better than calling people names.
• 7:46
  But I'm not. I'm not better than that at all.
• 7:51
  In fact, I'm most likely worse than that. Now
• 7:55
  let's take a look at the metaphor. In a recent
• 7:58
  show, I referred to Emily Hanford as the Alexa
• 8:02
  app of reading instruction. And this was a metaphor,
• 8:07
  a common literary device in which one makes a
• 8:12
  comparison without using the words like or as.
• 8:18
  It creates an image. For example, when we say
• 8:22
  America is a melting pot, we don't literally
• 8:25
  mean there's a big pot bubbling someplace. Metaphors
• 8:30
  create images and communicate things that an
• 8:33
  accumulation of words simply can't. And I compared
• 8:38
  Emily Hanford to an Alexa app. Is it an apt comparison?
• 8:45
  Yes. She says things without recourse. You can't
• 8:51
  trust her as a valid source of information. She
• 8:55
  presents things without context, very much like
• 8:59
  my Alexa app. For example, my Alexa app said
• 9:04
  that her net worth was $15 million. Interesting,
• 9:08
  yes? Do I trust this information? Do I think
• 9:13
  it's accurate? Maybe my Alexa app is Emily Hanford
• 9:19
  of Internet Information. Now recently somebody
• 9:23
  took great umbrage of my use of metaphor. I was
• 9:29
  said to have called her an Alexa app. Oh, the
• 9:33
  horror! But I didn't call her an Alexa app. I
• 9:37
  didn't say Emily Hanford is an Alexa app. If
• 9:41
  I wanted to call her a name, I could do far better
• 9:46
  than calling her an Alexa app. However, a person
• 9:50
  took great umbrage, but it seems to be selective
• 9:56
  umbrage. It seems to be something else disguised
• 10:01
  as umbrage. It seems to be false umbrage or pseudo
• 10:05
  umbrage. I mean, how could you possibly get all
• 10:10
  umbraided by someone using a metaphor to compare
• 10:13
  somebody to an Alexa app? And here's where the
• 10:19
  selective umbrage kicks in. Again, consider how
• 10:23
  teachers have been demeaned and impugned by Emily
• 10:27
  Hanford, Louisa Moats, and the Science of Reading
• 10:30
  movement. Their pretty words may not have contained
• 10:34
  metaphors, but think for a minute what's been
• 10:38
  said about classroom teachers and public education.
• 10:43
  Think of the constant false narrative teachers
• 10:48
  have had to endure for years. That's much worse
• 10:52
  than calling someone an Alexa app, selective
• 10:59
  umbrage. Now let's look at an analogy. An analogy
• 11:04
  is another literary device that uses something
• 11:08
  familiar to help you understand something new.
• 11:12
  For example, dog is to bone as Andy is to the
• 11:16
  euphonium. We know dogs love bones. The image
• 11:20
  of a dog greedily chewing on a bone is created
• 11:23
  in our head. So we can assume that Andy loves
• 11:27
  the euphonium as much as a dog loves bones. You
• 11:33
  shoehorn the new thing inside the known thing
• 11:36
  and understanding is enhanced considerably. Now,
• 11:41
  Emily Hanford is a journalist. Journalists just
• 11:45
  write things. People tell them things and they
• 11:49
  write it down. There's no checks and balances.
• 11:53
  There's no peer review. Things are pulled out
• 11:56
  of context often so that they're technically
• 12:00
  correct but conveniently inaccurate. Journalists
• 12:06
  write stuff. This is what they do. And in this
• 12:11
  context I wrote, you can't ask a skunk not to
• 12:15
  stink, meaning that a journalist is going to
• 12:19
  do what journalists do, just as a skunk does
• 12:22
  what a skunk does. I used an analogy. Now I could
• 12:28
  have said you can't ask a bunny not to hop or
• 12:30
  a snake not to slither, but it just doesn't roll
• 12:34
  off the tongue quite the same. Andy is to writing
• 12:40
  as monkeys are to throwing poop. Chihuahuas are
• 12:45
  small and make a lot of noise barking at things.
• 12:48
  Andy is a small man who makes a lot of noise.
• 12:52
  You can't ask a chihuahua not to bark. Metaphors
• 12:57
  and analogies are effective in conveying certain
• 13:01
  information because of the visual image created.
• 13:07
  If you want to take umbrage at something, and
• 13:10
  there's plenty of umbrage -worthy things, take
• 13:13
  umbrage at the money wasted to pay for commercial
• 13:17
  products and services related to reading instruction.
• 13:21
  Take umbrage at overcrowded classrooms and poor
• 13:26
  teaching conditions. Take umbrage at low teacher
• 13:31
  pay and lack of legitimate professional development
• 13:35
  opportunities. Take umbrage at tax cuts that
• 13:39
  make tuition costs rise. Take umbrage when the
• 13:45
  public cannot afford to go to our public colleges
• 13:49
  and universities. Take umbrage at the lack of
• 13:54
  healthcare, food insecurity, and mass shootings.
• 14:01
  Yes, I'm an offensive, mouthy little man. But
• 14:06
  I try to be offensive and mouthy for a purpose.
• 14:10
  So save your umbrage for things that are truly
• 14:13
  umbrage -worthy. This has been The Reading Instruction
• 14:18
  Show. I'm your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.