In becoming responsible consumers of educational research, we must ask four questions when claims are made that research has “proven these expensive, code-oriented, one-size-fits-all reading programs to be effective.

1. Are the results of these code-oriented reading programs persistent?  That is, do they last after the code-oriented instruction has been discontinued?

2.  Do the skills learned in these code-oriented reading programs transfer to real-life situations? 

3. Do these code-oriented programs enhance students’ ability to create meaning with print?  There’s a difference between scores on a DIBELS test and creating meaning with print.

4. Are these expensive, mind-numbering code-oriented reading programs more effective than balanced literacy instruction which includes reading and talking about good books, and writing a sharing students' authentic writing or stories?

The Science of Reading zealots in Minnesota and in other states around the country (Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio, and others) have done something pretty remarkable.  (It’s remarkably bad, but still remarkable.)  They have banned words.  It is now against the law in Minnesota for me to include ‘the three cueing systems’ on my syllabi, reading assignments, or course outlines. 

Imagine that.  A law telling me what I can and cannot say or can and cannot teach in my literacy methods class.  A law put together by people who know nothing of literacy instruction or research.  A law put together by people who sound out words instead of reading for meaning.  A law put together by people who look at every letter when they read.  A law put together by people who ignore syntax and semantics when they read.  A law that says I must ignore my three decades of research, scholarly work, and teaching experience.  It’s a law that states that I must ignore what a body of research from a variety of different fields has determined to be an empirical fact: that we use multiple forms of information to recognize words while creating meaning with print.  According to this brand-spank-n-new Minnesota law, I must instead lie to the students in my literacy methods classes.

It’s an emotional response, make no mistake about that.  The decision to abandon good reading instruction and move to what the SoR zealots call structured literacy is an emotional response.  The decision to use hyperbole and pejorative statements to dismiss that with which you are unfamiliar is an emotional response.  The decision to take the argument out of an academic realm to a political realm, and to threaten and bully those who disagree is an emotional response.   The decision to give credence to a radio journalist and ignore real literacy experts is an emotional decision.  Now, there’s nothing wrong with an emotional response.  Emotions are wonderful things.  They are part of what makes us wonderfully and uniquely human.  I wish more decisions were more emotional.  However, good decisions, just like good literacy instruction – is balanced.

In this podcast I interview Sven Johnson to talk about creativity and the creative process.

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.