In a recent show, I referred to Emily Hanford as the Alexa App of reading instruction. This was a metaphor, a common literary device in which one makes a comparison without using the words ‘like’ or ‘as’. It creates an image. When we say America is a melting pot, we don’t literally mean there’s a big pot bubbling somewhere. Metaphors create images and communicate things that lists of words cannot. Recently, somebody took great umbrage of my use of metaphor. This was selective umbrage. If you want to take umbrage at something, take umbrage at the money wasted to pay for commercial products and services. Take umbrage at over-crowed classrooms and poor teaching conditions. Take umbrage at low teacher pay and lack of legitimate professional development opportunities. Take umbrage at tax cuts that make tuition costs rise. Take umbrage when the public cannot afford to go to our public colleges and universities. Take umbrage at the lack of health care, food insecurity, and mass shootings.

If somebody makes the claim that research says something, one has an obligation to have read a research article at least once in their life. And if somebody says, “Show me the research,” that person should know what research is and how to read and interpret it.

Legitimate professional development for teachers is necessary. I used the term ‘legitimate’ to exclude programs and services that are profit-based. These are usually little more than infomercials disguised as professional development. Here, there is no check and balance. There is no blind peer review of the information provided. Only the information that supports their product or service is presented. Information that does not is not. The best example of this is LETRS professional development for teachers. As described in earlier chapters, there is no legitimate research provided to suggest that using LETRS (a) enhances students' reading achievement, (b) enhances teachers’ ability to teach effectively, and (c) is more effective than other types of professional development. (Remember, having elements that are supported by research doesn’t make the program research-based. Every program has some element that can be supported by research.)

Toadys sometimes call themselves “consultants”. They promote methods and say things that just happen to coincide with the products and services being sold by Big Publishing. Quite a coincidence, yes? Right and wrong are not determined based on what’s right and wrong; rather, by what will sell.

Despite having the word “science” in their title, the proposals put forth by the SoR are not grounded in science at all, but in pseudo-science, I-think-isms, and anecdotal evidence. In fact, they are promoting an ideology.

Real science. Real science puts forth conclusions and recommendations based on a wide body of research. Real science uses systematic methods to collect and analyze data. Real science draws conclusions only from data collected. And real science uses blind peer review for an objective system of checks and balances.

Ideology. An ideology is a system of ideas and beliefs. An ideology puts forth a dogma based on a very narrow range of data that must be adhered to. What the SOR promotes is based far more on a reading belief system than reading science. Hence, the SOR would be more accurately named, the Ideology of Reading.

One of the reasons why the Science of Reading people have been so successful is that they’ve been writing to the people over there. They’ve used stories and radio documentaries that sound very much like the way people talk. They’ve enabled the people over there to see and hear real people while our quiet very reasoned third-person voice has been ignored

This is a conversation with another master teacher, Daphne Russell

There never was a reading war. A war assumes there are two armies meeting on a field of battle. This didn’t happen. But there was a reading coup. There was a hostile takeover of the field of literacy instruction by profiteers who saw public education as their own private ATM machine. This group of profiteers is part of the educational industrial complex which includes Cambium-Lexia Learning, Pearson Education, Cengage Learning, Hough Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill Education, Voyager Sopris Learning, TAL Education Group, Bright Horizons, and KinderCare Learning. Their armies of well-paid toadies (consultants) promise schools simple solutions to complex problems.

“Just buy our shiny new products,” they say. “Pay for our services,” they say. “Get trained by our experts,” they say, “and all your literacy problems will go away. All your students will be reading above grade level.”

“Well, I don’t know,” the school says. “That’s a lot of money.”

“Look,” they say, “look at all the colorful charts and graphs. Look at all the pretty, pretty numbers.”

“Well,” the school says, “you do have numbers. That must mean it’s real.”

“Wouldn’t you like to have colorful charts and graphs like this? Wouldn’t you like to have pretty, pretty numbers?”

“Yes,” the school says. “Yes, I would.”

And that, my friends, is how education lost its soul.

Neuroscience is a study of the nervous system including the brain, spinal cord, and neurons (NIH, 2025). The neuroscience of reading looks at how the brain functions during reading using imaging techniques to detect blood flow and electrical energy (Gotlieb, et al., 2022). Cognitive science is based on the word ‘cognition’ which means thinking. Cognitive science looks at human thinking (Robinson-Riegler & Robinson-Riegler, 2012). One studies the physical brain as it thinks and the other studies the thinking the brain does. But we can’t observe thinking directly. We can only observe the effects of thinking. Thus, both fields look at the effects of thinking to make deductions about thinking itself.

The first part of this podcast is designed to help you understand how reading works from a purely cognitive perspective. This provides an important context for the second part where I examine the theory of orthographic mapping (Ehri, 2014). Orthographic mapping is a theory based on logical deductions made from research. The questions we must ask are how robust is the theory, how valid are the data upon which it is based, and how logical are the deductions? My conclusions are, not very, not very, and not very.

In this podcast, I try to make sense of orthographic mapping, a term invented by Linnea Ehri and introduced in Chapter 15 (Ehri, 2014). We’ll start with her definition:

“Orthographic mapping occurs when, in the course of reading specific words, readers form connections between written unit, either single graphemes or larger spelling patterns, and spoken units, either phonemes, syllables, or morphemes. These connections are retained in memory along with meanings and enable readers to recognize words by sight. An important consequence of orthographic mapping is that the spellings of words enter memory and influence vocabulary learning, the processing of phonological constituents in words, and phonological memory” (Ehri, 2014, pp. 5-6)

This is written with all the stunning clarity of a Rorschach inkblot. Let’s do a bit of unpack-O-rating.