I found your blog reframing that "All cues are NOT created equal", very helpful.
Many teachers are critical of the outlawing of strategies linked to 3-cueing, like asking kids "does it sound right, does it make sense?" It was also good to see the application of this nuance in your recent video "how to help your child read words."
However, in this conversation with Lori & Melissa,
You admit there is a lot of contradictory research, you even contradict Lori about Leveled Reading-
Lori, "I really was still doing some what I didn't know at the time were not so great practices of leveled reading, independent reading, just some inefficient stuff saying there is evidence for it."
Claude, "I don't want to contradict anyone, but that's actually not true. And the what works Clearinghouse puts leveled reading in the category of at least promising. And maybe even if oh, yeah, possibly effective."
There are a lot of contradictions like this, it just depends on who decides what research contributes to the "signal" and what goes to the "Noise". There are huge differences in judgements amongst Academics and Evidence Organizations.
Regarding this you imply those that don't promote your judgement "keep people ignorant".
Claude, "Research can be cross-cutting and contradictory. But when you're actively working to keep people ignorant of some very important things that they need to know."
You end with, "it's not about being right. It's about getting it right."
But all along you imply you are right and that those who don't judge the research the way you do are "flat earthers" and they have to "jump the pond".
I don't think that this approach will end the wars.
George, I appreciate your comment, and I can see how you can make the observations you do. A couple of points for your further consideration:
First, the problem (or challenge) is that not everything that everyone says about reading/teaching reading is "right." Assuming we're dealing with an empirical problem/challenge, by "getting it right" I mean being able to support stated positions with research findings, and when there are inconsistent findings, as there are in any empirical enterprise, then being able to discern where there is some degree of convergence in the research. I realize none of these terms is easy to nail down, and will require more definitions, all of which have their own complications. But just to clarify, that's what I'm referring to as "getting it right." Being able to support a position based on research, and when there are contradictions, working through those to find where there is convergence--if in fact there is. In reading research there convergence in various domains, such as those I discussed with Melissa and Lori. If you take a look at previous posts, eg
You'll see where (at least according to me) there is convergence
As for implying that "those that don't promote [my] judgement 'keep people ignorant,'" I believe you are incorrect on two counts. First, I didn't imply it: I stated it. But, second, it wasn't about my judgement; it was about the fact that some individuals and organizations simply do not acknowledge, much less share, important research-based information with people who need it... teachers!
I don't know if you've read my previous posts about advocates for English Learners and bilingual education (and I include myself in this group) who refuse to discuss or even engage in the disagreements about whether "science of reading" (a term I use reluctantly) applies or maybe even is harmful to English Learners (see also https://claudegoldenberg.substack.com/p/why-do-so-many-mlel-advocates-reject?r=1awjg4). I have recounted attempts to engage them in discussions about the issues, only to be met with stonewalling. They certainly don't have to agree with me, but there is, I believe, an obligation to engage when there is disagreement on important issues that directly affect student lives, and to be willing and able to engage at level that involves informed use of relevant research. If you are not willing to do that, you are withholding important information, also known as 'keeping people ignorant.'
Claude, I assumed your implied or stated (does it really matter which?) criticism was about your debate with Tierney & Pearson. They certainly engaged with you using informed research. So I thought your comment about "flat earthers" was about them.
I was not aware of your clash with that CEO so if your criticisms were about that rather than Tierney & Pearson I think you should state that.
The example of the problem with research is the conflict over leveled reading. Lori, saying there is no evidence for it and then you correcting her. There are a lot of these contradictions in the SoR.
I'm just really concerned at all the criticism that gets thrown at Teachers and all the dubious evidence claims.
Anyway, I can see you are trying to improve things by promoting discussion and the most helpful thing i've seen is your example lesson with teachers discussing each step. I hope you can focus on that more.
Does implied or stated matter? Maybe. In general I try to be as clear and precise as possible (without being any more pedantic than strictly necessary), but I wanted to be clear that I explicitly meant and had no intention of backing into (or away from) my appraisal of what some folks are doing--keeping teachers who want and need the information ignorant of it.
I was not necessarily referring to Tierney and Pearson. I take your point about identifying who I was referring to (esp since I just said I try to be as clear and precise as possible), but I was not the focus of the recording. I was interviewing Melissa and Lori; I could have gone on about a lot of stuff, but that was as far as I wanted to go in that context.
Contradictions, inconsistencies, research pointing in different directions. The nature of the beast and not just SOR. Remember covid and immunizations? Climate change? And those are just the topics in the public view. There are all sorts of things like that in all the disciplines.
Sometimes they can be reconciled; sometimes they can't. As you might recall, I did more than contradict Lori--I pointed out that regardless of the WWC's judgment about leveled literacy, there are details about LL (and other items) that can subject to scrutiny and discussion, eg, what the evidence (in this case, the outcome measure) comprised.
I share your concern "at all the criticism that gets thrown at Teachers and all the dubious evidence claims."
I'm very pleased you found the lesson that Marnie did and that we discussed helpful. I do hope to do some more of that, including with ELs, which people have asked about. If you or anyone else have one or more recorded lessons (and not just with ELs) that you'd like to offer up, pls let me know.
And thank you again for your engagement and especially your challenges.
Yes u did point out regardless of what WWC says the studies should be scrutinized for a variety of factors, and that opens up the debate to even more disagreement than we already have.
We will probably go around in circles about the implied issue, so i will leave it that.
"The example of the problem with research is the conflict over leveled reading. Lori, saying there is no evidence for it and then you correcting her. There are a lot of these contradictions in the SoR."
I agree! (When the Experts Get It Wrong, https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/when-the-experts-get-it-wrong). But as a reading specialist working with struggling first and second graders, it's not the debate over leveled text that concerns me--it's fundamental disagreement about what beginning reading should look like that continues to worry me.
Harriet, I agree. Sometimes I find instead of talking about the most important issue (how to teach young children to learn to read)people talk about the details. (debate on leveled text). Yes, we need to focus on what research says and doesn't say but you are right the question that most needs to be talked is what should beginning reading look like? We need to hear about the research that supports this question but we also need to hear from teachers who have tried new things because of being introduced to research that was new to them and are seeing a difference in their students because of that. These educators may not be able to cite the exact research. (They spend their day in classrooms and may have been told about the research 3 years ago in a workshop.) but boy they can talk about the change they are seeing in their students.
Yes, I agree. However, the podcast didn't delve deeply into the evidence for beginning reading. Leveled reading was the only specific example mentioned regarding evidence. I've tried to read extensively on the topic, and I've found there are many disagreements and significant financial conflicts of interest on both sides. But, I found Claude's 3-minute example of teaching a beginning reader to be the most helpful and reassuring, as it closely aligns with what I see most teachers doing in my state. I didn't find "Sold a Story" helpful at all.
"But, I found Claude's 3-minute example of teaching a beginning reader to be the most helpful and reassuring, as it closely aligns with what I see most teachers doing in my state."
This is heartening! As for Sold a Story, it explains why teachers like me have to spend time turning "predictable" books into "decodable" books so that we can see what the 3-minute video showed: whether students can read the words instead of memorizing a sentence pattern (I see the, I like to, I go to the) and finishing the sentence by "reading" a picture.
"Fortunately, when I asked my K-1 colleagues to replace the Level A-D predictable books from the Benchmark Assessment System with decodable versions I had created, they readily agreed, understanding that they needed to know whether their decoding instruction was having the impact they intended it to have. They understood that predicting a word based on the picture provides the appearance of reading by mimicking the process, while the reality of reading proficiency is quite different. Discovering our kindergartners can’t read ‘nap’ is a lot more useful than discovering that they can’t read ‘sleeping’. And the same is true for the other substitutions I made in the Level C text Socks, which I renamed Tab—changes such as, wake up to get up, window to bench, door to mat, and purr to yum."
I love this! You are always so generous with your time, and I admire that about you so much! Especially now that there is so much noise (in California, at least) about how terrible evidence based instruction is for MLs. So grateful for your insight and continued leadership in this area, Claude.
After you enjoy the much-needed mirth and levity in this discussion, listen to the M & L episode with Steve Dykstra that Lori recommends for a fine reminder (if you need it) why these wars must end . . . NOW. This episode packs such a punch that I can still remember where I was when I listened.
As part of our Dyslexia Awareness Month series, listen again to Dr. Steven Dykstra discuss the devastating effects on students who have not received the instruction they need to be successful readers.
April 1, 2022
The axis of rating trauma is frequent and repetitive. Over time, the chronic trauma wears down kids who can’t read. This has devastating effects. In our official 100th episode, Dr. Steven Dyskstra discusses Trauma and Reading. He explains the connection between not being taught to read using evidence-based practices and the subsequent, unnecessary trauma this causes in children’s lives. Stepping away from science-based approaches creates issues for kids that don’t need to be there. This is a pervasive problem happening everywhere.
Dr. Steven Dykstra is a psychologist, advocate, and troublemaker in the reading world. He has worked with the most severely traumatized and mentally ill children for more than 25 years. His passion for reading comes from the recognition that the thousands of children he has served often pay the highest price for our failures and mistakes.
Harriett, thanks for calling this out. For those who want to go right to where Steve Dykstra's podcast comes up in the discussion with M&L, go to 29:44 of the recording. I wish everyone would read/listen to this, esp those who set up roadblocks to getting the best knowledge we have into the heads, hands, and hearts of teachers and others who could help our children benefit from more productive experiences learning to read. Really terrible what's happening and has been happening for a long time.
So charming! Thank you for digging into Lori and Melissa’s interesting backstories and the positive ending. More of this will end the wars.
Claude,
I found your blog reframing that "All cues are NOT created equal", very helpful.
Many teachers are critical of the outlawing of strategies linked to 3-cueing, like asking kids "does it sound right, does it make sense?" It was also good to see the application of this nuance in your recent video "how to help your child read words."
However, in this conversation with Lori & Melissa,
You admit there is a lot of contradictory research, you even contradict Lori about Leveled Reading-
Lori, "I really was still doing some what I didn't know at the time were not so great practices of leveled reading, independent reading, just some inefficient stuff saying there is evidence for it."
Claude, "I don't want to contradict anyone, but that's actually not true. And the what works Clearinghouse puts leveled reading in the category of at least promising. And maybe even if oh, yeah, possibly effective."
There are a lot of contradictions like this, it just depends on who decides what research contributes to the "signal" and what goes to the "Noise". There are huge differences in judgements amongst Academics and Evidence Organizations.
Regarding this you imply those that don't promote your judgement "keep people ignorant".
Claude, "Research can be cross-cutting and contradictory. But when you're actively working to keep people ignorant of some very important things that they need to know."
You end with, "it's not about being right. It's about getting it right."
But all along you imply you are right and that those who don't judge the research the way you do are "flat earthers" and they have to "jump the pond".
I don't think that this approach will end the wars.
George, I appreciate your comment, and I can see how you can make the observations you do. A couple of points for your further consideration:
First, the problem (or challenge) is that not everything that everyone says about reading/teaching reading is "right." Assuming we're dealing with an empirical problem/challenge, by "getting it right" I mean being able to support stated positions with research findings, and when there are inconsistent findings, as there are in any empirical enterprise, then being able to discern where there is some degree of convergence in the research. I realize none of these terms is easy to nail down, and will require more definitions, all of which have their own complications. But just to clarify, that's what I'm referring to as "getting it right." Being able to support a position based on research, and when there are contradictions, working through those to find where there is convergence--if in fact there is. In reading research there convergence in various domains, such as those I discussed with Melissa and Lori. If you take a look at previous posts, eg
• https://claudegoldenberg.substack.com/p/whats-reading-science-got-to-do-with?r=1awjg4
• https://claudegoldenberg.substack.com/p/reading-research-and-bilingual-education?r=1awjg4
You'll see where (at least according to me) there is convergence
As for implying that "those that don't promote [my] judgement 'keep people ignorant,'" I believe you are incorrect on two counts. First, I didn't imply it: I stated it. But, second, it wasn't about my judgement; it was about the fact that some individuals and organizations simply do not acknowledge, much less share, important research-based information with people who need it... teachers!
I don't know if you've read my previous posts about advocates for English Learners and bilingual education (and I include myself in this group) who refuse to discuss or even engage in the disagreements about whether "science of reading" (a term I use reluctantly) applies or maybe even is harmful to English Learners (see also https://claudegoldenberg.substack.com/p/why-do-so-many-mlel-advocates-reject?r=1awjg4). I have recounted attempts to engage them in discussions about the issues, only to be met with stonewalling. They certainly don't have to agree with me, but there is, I believe, an obligation to engage when there is disagreement on important issues that directly affect student lives, and to be willing and able to engage at level that involves informed use of relevant research. If you are not willing to do that, you are withholding important information, also known as 'keeping people ignorant.'
Claude, I assumed your implied or stated (does it really matter which?) criticism was about your debate with Tierney & Pearson. They certainly engaged with you using informed research. So I thought your comment about "flat earthers" was about them.
I was not aware of your clash with that CEO so if your criticisms were about that rather than Tierney & Pearson I think you should state that.
The example of the problem with research is the conflict over leveled reading. Lori, saying there is no evidence for it and then you correcting her. There are a lot of these contradictions in the SoR.
I'm just really concerned at all the criticism that gets thrown at Teachers and all the dubious evidence claims.
Anyway, I can see you are trying to improve things by promoting discussion and the most helpful thing i've seen is your example lesson with teachers discussing each step. I hope you can focus on that more.
Does implied or stated matter? Maybe. In general I try to be as clear and precise as possible (without being any more pedantic than strictly necessary), but I wanted to be clear that I explicitly meant and had no intention of backing into (or away from) my appraisal of what some folks are doing--keeping teachers who want and need the information ignorant of it.
I was not necessarily referring to Tierney and Pearson. I take your point about identifying who I was referring to (esp since I just said I try to be as clear and precise as possible), but I was not the focus of the recording. I was interviewing Melissa and Lori; I could have gone on about a lot of stuff, but that was as far as I wanted to go in that context.
Contradictions, inconsistencies, research pointing in different directions. The nature of the beast and not just SOR. Remember covid and immunizations? Climate change? And those are just the topics in the public view. There are all sorts of things like that in all the disciplines.
Sometimes they can be reconciled; sometimes they can't. As you might recall, I did more than contradict Lori--I pointed out that regardless of the WWC's judgment about leveled literacy, there are details about LL (and other items) that can subject to scrutiny and discussion, eg, what the evidence (in this case, the outcome measure) comprised.
I share your concern "at all the criticism that gets thrown at Teachers and all the dubious evidence claims."
I'm very pleased you found the lesson that Marnie did and that we discussed helpful. I do hope to do some more of that, including with ELs, which people have asked about. If you or anyone else have one or more recorded lessons (and not just with ELs) that you'd like to offer up, pls let me know.
And thank you again for your engagement and especially your challenges.
Yes u did point out regardless of what WWC says the studies should be scrutinized for a variety of factors, and that opens up the debate to even more disagreement than we already have.
We will probably go around in circles about the implied issue, so i will leave it that.
"The example of the problem with research is the conflict over leveled reading. Lori, saying there is no evidence for it and then you correcting her. There are a lot of these contradictions in the SoR."
I agree! (When the Experts Get It Wrong, https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/when-the-experts-get-it-wrong). But as a reading specialist working with struggling first and second graders, it's not the debate over leveled text that concerns me--it's fundamental disagreement about what beginning reading should look like that continues to worry me.
Harriet, I agree. Sometimes I find instead of talking about the most important issue (how to teach young children to learn to read)people talk about the details. (debate on leveled text). Yes, we need to focus on what research says and doesn't say but you are right the question that most needs to be talked is what should beginning reading look like? We need to hear about the research that supports this question but we also need to hear from teachers who have tried new things because of being introduced to research that was new to them and are seeing a difference in their students because of that. These educators may not be able to cite the exact research. (They spend their day in classrooms and may have been told about the research 3 years ago in a workshop.) but boy they can talk about the change they are seeing in their students.
Yes, I agree. However, the podcast didn't delve deeply into the evidence for beginning reading. Leveled reading was the only specific example mentioned regarding evidence. I've tried to read extensively on the topic, and I've found there are many disagreements and significant financial conflicts of interest on both sides. But, I found Claude's 3-minute example of teaching a beginning reader to be the most helpful and reassuring, as it closely aligns with what I see most teachers doing in my state. I didn't find "Sold a Story" helpful at all.
"But, I found Claude's 3-minute example of teaching a beginning reader to be the most helpful and reassuring, as it closely aligns with what I see most teachers doing in my state."
This is heartening! As for Sold a Story, it explains why teachers like me have to spend time turning "predictable" books into "decodable" books so that we can see what the 3-minute video showed: whether students can read the words instead of memorizing a sentence pattern (I see the, I like to, I go to the) and finishing the sentence by "reading" a picture.
"Fortunately, when I asked my K-1 colleagues to replace the Level A-D predictable books from the Benchmark Assessment System with decodable versions I had created, they readily agreed, understanding that they needed to know whether their decoding instruction was having the impact they intended it to have. They understood that predicting a word based on the picture provides the appearance of reading by mimicking the process, while the reality of reading proficiency is quite different. Discovering our kindergartners can’t read ‘nap’ is a lot more useful than discovering that they can’t read ‘sleeping’. And the same is true for the other substitutions I made in the Level C text Socks, which I renamed Tab—changes such as, wake up to get up, window to bench, door to mat, and purr to yum."
I love this! You are always so generous with your time, and I admire that about you so much! Especially now that there is so much noise (in California, at least) about how terrible evidence based instruction is for MLs. So grateful for your insight and continued leadership in this area, Claude.
Thank you; you're very kind.
After you enjoy the much-needed mirth and levity in this discussion, listen to the M & L episode with Steve Dykstra that Lori recommends for a fine reminder (if you need it) why these wars must end . . . NOW. This episode packs such a punch that I can still remember where I was when I listened.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/listen-again-ep-100-trauma-and-reading-with-dr/id1463219123?i=1000582997535
As part of our Dyslexia Awareness Month series, listen again to Dr. Steven Dykstra discuss the devastating effects on students who have not received the instruction they need to be successful readers.
April 1, 2022
The axis of rating trauma is frequent and repetitive. Over time, the chronic trauma wears down kids who can’t read. This has devastating effects. In our official 100th episode, Dr. Steven Dyskstra discusses Trauma and Reading. He explains the connection between not being taught to read using evidence-based practices and the subsequent, unnecessary trauma this causes in children’s lives. Stepping away from science-based approaches creates issues for kids that don’t need to be there. This is a pervasive problem happening everywhere.
Dr. Steven Dykstra is a psychologist, advocate, and troublemaker in the reading world. He has worked with the most severely traumatized and mentally ill children for more than 25 years. His passion for reading comes from the recognition that the thousands of children he has served often pay the highest price for our failures and mistakes.
Harriett, thanks for calling this out. For those who want to go right to where Steve Dykstra's podcast comes up in the discussion with M&L, go to 29:44 of the recording. I wish everyone would read/listen to this, esp those who set up roadblocks to getting the best knowledge we have into the heads, hands, and hearts of teachers and others who could help our children benefit from more productive experiences learning to read. Really terrible what's happening and has been happening for a long time.
To paraphrase Lyndon Johnson: Grab them by their hearts, and their heads and hands will follow. Maybe we're just not tugging at enough heartstrings.