This podcast describes the type of literacy learning environments and instruction that enable young children to develop their full writing potential. In a good literacy learning environment there is (a) lots of talk, (b) lots of writing, and (c) lots of reading. There is also direct and systematic instruction done in the context of authentic writing.

In the usual practice of academia, research is used to create theories. Theories are then used to explain a set of facts and to understand phenomena. And as new data is encountered and as old theories become obsolete, these theories either evolve or are they’re replaced by new theories. This is the natural way of things. All along the way, there is plenty of rigorous academic debate and respectful discourse over the research conducted and the application of theories.

However, as I write this, the Science of Reading Clown Club is doing what any clown club would do when they can’t win an argument based on merits; they are lobbying state legislatures to force teacher preparation programs at all colleges and universities in the state of Minnesota to include Clown Club principles in their curriculum.

The Science of Reading clown Club is an interesting bit of paradox that appears to be based on a misunderstanding of both science and reading.

Writing emerges naturally as children are exposed to real-life writing, as they use writing for real-life experiences, and as other humans listen and respond to their ideas. The podcast explains.

In reviewing some schools’ RTI plans, a standardized reading achievement test is used as a screening device. Students are put in Tiers I, II, or III reading intervention groups based on their percentile ranking on standardized tests. For example, if you’re in the 10th percentile or below, you go to Tier III, the 40th percentile or below you go to Tier II, and the 60th percentile or below you go to Tier I.

When you live in the world of standardized tests and percentile rankings, there is a normal distribution of scores that is beautifully displayed in the bell-shaped curve. Here, half the population is reading below average. That’s called a normal population or a normal distribution of scores. But if everybody was reading above average, eventually average would become below average and above average would become average, and below average would become really below average. In a normal distribution of scores, half the students in a school should score below average. That’s called normal. That doesn’t mean that we don’t give each and every student the help they need so that they’re reading, writing, and doing math at their very best. We want all students to achieve grade-level standards. It is an excellent goal, but at the same time, it’s an unrealistic goal.

A learning disability only exists within a school environment. Outside the narrow confines of school, I’ve seen many with identified learning disabilities being highly successful in their professional and personal lives. This was only after shaking off the stigma of the label that had been given to them by the educational system. How dare we define anybody’s potential. What is defined as a learning disability is really an educational disability. How about if we significantly down-size the special education system, create smaller class sizes, provide better working conditions, and give teachers the professional development opportunities they need to be able to include inclusive learning environments with differentiated instruction

MTSS or Multi-tiered systems of support claims to be based on scientific research and use only evidence-based practices. MTSS originated in the swamps of Special Ed World. PBIS (positive behavioral interventions and supports) and ABA (applied behavioral analysis) are used with MTSS to make some behaviors disappear and others appeart. Magic. Claims are made that these are “evidence-based”.

Can a practice really be said to be evidence-based if it only looks at a certain type of evidence? Can it really be scientifically-based reading research if only certain methods are allowed to ask certain types of questions? And that’s the whole problem with the liturgical chants of “evidence” and “evidence-based” and “scientifically-based research” made by the Science of Reading Comedy Club to support a litany of practice taken from their direct-instruction Holy Book.

That’s the whole problem in Special Ed World with their declaration of faith stating that only practices used to manipulate and control behavior are “evidence-based”. These represent a simplistic understanding of research in the social sciences. Within Special Ed World and the Science of Reading Comedy Club, and even the US Department of Education, controlled experimental studies (CES) are thought to be the only way of establishing causal relationships, that one thing causes the other thing to happen.

In the education world, the term “evidence-based” is often thrown around carelessly and used to end the discussion. But the question I would posit (and pardon me for being so inquisitive) is this: When you say a practice or strategy is “evidence-based” have you actually looked at the evidence of the evidence-base? Or are you just using the term because you heard somebody else use it?

There’s a difference between collecting data and research. While the research process includes data collection, collecting data is not research. The research process includes data. But collecting data is not research. In the world of science and academia, research is not research unless and until it has been subjected to blind peer review. Collecting data is not research. Confusing data with research is a common practice in the for-profit realm. Confusing data with research is a common practice with those who have a political or ideological agenda. Confusing data with research is a common practice those outside of education.

When people discover I have a religious view that is not in alignment with their own, there are three things that often happen. First, they try to convince you of the wrongness of their view and the rightness of their own. Second, they call you names. And third, they pray for you. This podcast focuses on the third. And yes, I realize I am sometimes guilty of one and two above.