There's a literacy inquisition going on in Minnesota. Science of reading zealots are on a holy crusade. They are banning books, banning words, and banning ideas. Books, words, and ideas are dangerous things. They could enable people to think – to think about things – and to think critically. There is a law now in Minnesota, based on the Read Act, sponsored by Representative Heather Edelson that I am NOT to teach the 3-cueing system. I cannot say it. I cannot mention it. I cannot have it on my syllabus. It's illeagal. I can’t even think about it. It’s dangerous. It’s a dangerous thing.

Minnesota passed legislation, The Read Act, manding that I lie to my preservice teachers. It's the law, that I must ignore my 30 years as a scholar, teacher, and tutor and tell my students things that are not true.

Lucy Calkins has made some tremendous contributions – but at the end of the day, she does not represent balanced literacy or a meaningful-based approach to literacy instruction. At the end of the day, Lucy represents Lucy. She speaks for Lucy Calkins. She’s promoting her books, her programs, her products, and her Units of Study. And that’s good. Meaning-based literacy educators are not reliant on any external products.

She doesn’t represent the ILA, the ILEC, or anybody else She does not represent meaning-based educators. She doesn’t represent those who opposed the Science of Reading nonsense. She doesn’t speak for those of us who advocate teacher empowerment, smaller classes, better pay and working conditions for teachers, adequate health care, and economic opportunities, or those of us pushing for racial equity and social justice. She doesn’t.

But there’s no reading messiahs here. There are no reading messiahs. The only messiah that meaning-based reading educators have is a wide body of research using diverse research methodologies. That is our messiah. That is our holy book. That is our religion.

I’m spending time analyzing Jessica Winter’s article in a series of podcasts because it accurately represents the dis-representation and un-understandings of literacy instruction being portrayed by the SoR community as well as other media outlets who are willing to stray far outside the boundaries of accuracy and journalism. They are obviously willing to write or say anything to boost their readership or viewership.

In this podcast, I unpack some of her whacky, zany, nutty comments related to research, balanced literacy, intensive phonics instruction, the science of reading, and word-building instruction

The podcast looks at two different types of systems. Arthur Combs (1999) described two common types of systems used in organizations: top-down (managed) closed systems and person-centered open systems. This podcast contrasts the effects of a top-down closed system and a person-centered open system applied in an educational setting

Reading workshop is an approach to reading instruction that falls within the parameters of whole language. It may seem more complicated, but once you understand the process and structure of reading workshop, a lot easier, and a lot more effective to implement. And it is multilevel and can be individualized to the specific needs and interests of your students.

Reading workshop is not a method with step-by-step procedures that must be followed (with fidelity) like a recipe. Rather, it is an approach to reading instruction based on research and research-based theory related to how humans learn literacy.

Reading workshop is not standardized. In a reading workshop, what you would see would be based on the teacher, students, age, level, etc. What works with one class doesn’t always work with another. Thus, in each teacher's classroom, you might see different things. Reading workshop is structured, it’s planned, there’s very direct and explicit instruction based on individual students' needs, and it’s strongly research-based, using real reading science, based on how real humans best learn.

Beware of simplistic answers for complex problems. They are alluring but alluringly ineffective. One of these simplistic, alluringly ineffective answers to a complex problem is the idea that we can fix all problems in education by holding somebody “accountable.”

This is an interview with Marvin Melvinhaus from the Moms for Liberty. In this podcast we discuss freedom, schools, and LGBT rights.

In the 1980s, basals were the main tool used to teach reading (they still are). A basal is a teaching manual for reading. It includes an anthology of stories for students to read, a teacher’s manual with directions for how to teach reading, and consumable workbooks to use to teach reading subskills. This podcast describes the beginning of my journal from basal instruction to reading workshop.

Corrine Hess published an article titled, Teacher Prep Programs Not on the Same Page as Wisconsin’s New Reading Law on the Wisconsin Public Radio website. I'm analyzing this article because the severe un-understandings of the reading, reading science, and reading instruction displayed here is illustrative of what we see on the national level.