Hanford: So much of this research isn’t new. And this idea that readers use context, multiple sources of information to solve words, identify words as they’re reading, that was really taken on by researchers back in the 70s and 80s, as an interesting question. Like, is that what we do? And they showed quite definitively that that wasn’t the case. I mean, were you sort of aware of that research and how clear that was already by the 90s?
Calkins: Um, again, you’re asking me to go back and figure out what was in my mind at one point or another. Um, but I would say that, that you have to remember that that research was not – I don't think that there were classrooms that were doing classroom-based methods that were exciting, and poignant and beautiful, and, you know, getting kids on fire as readers and writers, that were using that that train of thinking. You know, it was part of an entire gestalt that was different than ours.
These people belong in gaol. Introducing teaching methods that were known to be wrong because they don't like the style of the effective training. Therefore introducing new training which is less effective. This has damaged countless lives. Reading is a fundamental requirement of modern society, and failing to teach people because you don't like an effective approach is criminal.
Again from the podcast:
"Good reading instruction isn’t boring for children. Maybe adults find parts of it boring. But this shouldn’t be about what adults want. It should be about what kids need.
And there’s no reason that reading instruction aligned with scientific evidence can’t be exciting and beautiful. I think Lucy Calkins sees it that way now too. Because instruction aligned with the science of reading is what she says she’s now selling."
Luckily in the US, being very wrong about something, even when it's very consequential, is not illegal. We'd have a much less entrepreneurial society, and a lot less open, free debate, if it were.
Lucy Calkins did not force people to follow her methods, she persuaded them through teaching and advocacy.
FWIW I think a lot of affected students would have a reasonable civil case against Teacher's College, and other places where teachers were taught this nonsense, for harms done. If medical doctors were routinely taught something wrong and contrary to the published research at medical schools, we'd probably be thinking about a similar suit. But we don't generally put teachers and doctors in the same bucket; for one thing, teachers don't take a hippocratic oath.
> If medical doctors were routinely taught something wrong and contrary to the published research at medical schools, we'd probably be thinking about a similar suit
But we don't see one with respect to popular nutritional advice, which is in a very dismal state with the old food pyramid being promoted as the way and no one can agree on anything because nothing is reproducible.
What has it been replaced with? I try to keep up with health literature and am not familiar with the food pyramid's replacement. Perhaps it hasn't received as much advertisement as the food pyramid did.
In 2011, the pyramid was done away with altogether and replaced with MyPlate, which remains the USDA's current nutritional guide graphic. https://www.myplate.gov/
This isn't a free speech issue. This is a matter of fraud. Claiming you have methods of teaching literacy when you don't is fraud. Lying or pressuring congressman to get government grants is equally fraud.
Fraud is generally defined as intentionally deceiving others for personal or financial gain. I think it’s pretty clear here that these people were wrong, and arguably deceiving themselves, but certainly not intentionally deceiving others (which implies knowing true facts and withholding them). And I also think their main aim was to improve the lives of children, not personal enrichment.
Again, not everything that’s wrong or bad is illegal.
Either they were negligent or they were incompetent. In either case, these people should in no way be in positions to advocate for teaching methods or teachers themselves.
Yet, no one has been held accountable. There has not been any reckoning for that teacher who ignored best practice because 'fuck bush', and all the others who advocated for cueing. Lucy Caulkins has made millions peddling techniques that have ruined the lives of 1000s of kids. If this were a drug, you would be demanding the company be out of business.
> Luckily in the US, being very wrong about something, even when it's very consequential, is not illegal.
It is for certain professions. And the criteria for civil liability are much lighter than that for criminal liability. All professionals should carry liability insurance. And, they should operate under the protection of a limited liability company or something similar.
Yes, early elementary reading education should include phonics. Calkins would agree - her first reading curriculum (which is relatively new compared to her writing work) tells schools using the program to supplement it with a phonics curriculum; That wasn't her specialty (just like she doesn't cover math and history). Reducing all reading instruction to phonics is wildly reductive, and her program does a good job at the non-phonics components (and possibly phonics too now? I believe they've added a lot more of that to the base curriculum with the recent revisions, but no personal experience).
I think we should all stop using the term "phonics".
If you read the whole article I think you will agree that what you call "phonics" is actually just "reading"...
All of the rest, the context, cues, word-recognition, is something on top of seeing the letters, knowing the sound the make individually, knowing the sound they make when put in sequence. Good readers still see all the letters, don't work on guessing context, looking for cues, or seeing words as unified pictures.
I don't think that's actually the case. When I'm reading, I'm reading sentences or paragraphs at a time (not letters at a time), regularly making significant guesses on word sound and meaning based on context clues. I think this is true of most adept readers. Clearly understanding individual letters is part of that, but would not agree that "phonics" == "reading"
It's a lttile mroe colmceptiad tahn taht toguhh. Yes, iuiivadndl ltteres do metatr, but good rdreeas aern't mtenally snidunog out eervy wrod tehy raed. Raehtr, thier eeys tkae in eevry leettr at ocne and teihr brinas intntalsy renzgioce the wrod. Taht's why you can prlaboby slitl raed tihs ppaaagrrh eevn thgouh the mdidle leetrts in ervey wrod are scerbmald.
(It's a little more complicated than that though. Yes, individual letters do matter, but good readers aren't mentally sounding out every word they read. Rather, their eyes take in every letter at once and their brains instantly recognize the word. That's why you can probably still read this paragraph even though the middle letters in every word are scrambled.)
Phonics is important for being able to read words your brain isn't already familiar with, which is especially critical during the learning process when "words your brain isn't already familiar with" is like 95% of words. Context clues can help there too, but those aren't nearly as easy or accurate as just sounding out the word.
Fun anecdote: I recently had a chance to re-experience that learning process myself after listening to a long fantasy book series on Audible with lots of made-up terms (names, cities, magic items, etc), then going on a fan forum later and seeing those same words spelled out for the first time ever. Phonics was invaluable to me in puzzling out which words corresponded to which terms I was familiar with from listening to the series.
Hanford: So much of this research isn’t new. And this idea that readers use context, multiple sources of information to solve words, identify words as they’re reading, that was really taken on by researchers back in the 70s and 80s, as an interesting question. Like, is that what we do? And they showed quite definitively that that wasn’t the case. I mean, were you sort of aware of that research and how clear that was already by the 90s?
Calkins: Um, again, you’re asking me to go back and figure out what was in my mind at one point or another. Um, but I would say that, that you have to remember that that research was not – I don't think that there were classrooms that were doing classroom-based methods that were exciting, and poignant and beautiful, and, you know, getting kids on fire as readers and writers, that were using that that train of thinking. You know, it was part of an entire gestalt that was different than ours.
These people belong in gaol. Introducing teaching methods that were known to be wrong because they don't like the style of the effective training. Therefore introducing new training which is less effective. This has damaged countless lives. Reading is a fundamental requirement of modern society, and failing to teach people because you don't like an effective approach is criminal.
Again from the podcast:
"Good reading instruction isn’t boring for children. Maybe adults find parts of it boring. But this shouldn’t be about what adults want. It should be about what kids need.
And there’s no reason that reading instruction aligned with scientific evidence can’t be exciting and beautiful. I think Lucy Calkins sees it that way now too. Because instruction aligned with the science of reading is what she says she’s now selling."