Two well-respected researchers in the field of reading just a few months ago took a scalpel to the theoretical framework of the approach to reading instruction made palatable to policy makers by journalist Emily Hansford et al.
Terry — Thank you so much for presenting this information in your always clear, detailed, and intellectually honest way. You have exposed the cognitive dangers of the slipshod, simplistic, and highly outdated approach that has been promoted by a couple of journalists and some well-intentioned but naive conservatives who have reasoned that turning the clock back would in some way pave the way for every child to learn to bark at text as a goal, instead of gaining satisfaction from constructing meaning from literature connected to their interests — and the even more dangerous acts of enshrining the methods of the past into legislation virtually outlawing, in some cases, something as basic as a multi-cueing system approach to make reading meaningful and interesting. Thank you, again, for so clearly providing information that could positively influence the pedagogy of literacy.
I've scanned the post and wasn't able to locate the word "conservative" in it. I have, however, been collecting political documents (bills proposed and passed at the federal and state level, the redesign of the NAEP reading test and its derailment by conservative ideologues, the dyslexia legislation proposed in 2021 by Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin in December, 2021, which states passed restrictive phonics laws first. I've been watching the more conservative states like Texas. The state-level method of "defined autonomy" is now a blend of liberal ideology and ultra hard right ideology. Politicals are starting to shift along the right left right now. It's not disinformation to report that Jeb Bush blessed the Common Core as did many liberals which angered the Science of Reading folks who then began taken proactive steps to enact legislation under the GOP banner re NCLB. idk. you tell me.
If you scanned Charlie's post and didn't see the word "conservative", it is there. Even if he hadn't used that word, you also seem to be pretty comfortable in running with that implication.
I was replying to Charlie, not you. Synthetic phonics has been usually coded as converservative in the past (I partially blame that stain called Bush Jr and for more than merely testing) and as something that idiot reactionaries push without knowing anything about (which they don't, so they implement it wrong). As a liberal who prefers phonics, I want to get a restraining order on those who just want to jerk teachers around and then cloak that desire in the synthetic phonics, an actually worthwhile path. To say I find "pro-phonics" conservatives disingenuous is much more polite than what I mean. I am pro-phonics and they really are doing the opposite of helping.
You won't find anybody more pro-phonics than me. I taught in private reading clinics one on one in Los Angeles for a few years and wow did those kids need phonics big time. I have a background in linguistics. It's not so much the phonics that bothers me, it's that the conservative ideologues have hijacked it and distorted what science really has to say about it. I know that reading instruction is non-partisan. But phonics has always been an easy in for them. Who's Charlie?
I appreciate your feedback, Charlie. We really are at a crossroads. Good teachers building real scientific pedagogical expertise are so badly needed. I’m hopeful I can add something to the mix and I do so much appreciate your taking the time to let me know you think so, too. 🙏
Terry — Thank you so much for presenting this information in your always clear, detailed, and intellectually honest way. You have exposed the cognitive dangers of the slipshod, simplistic, and highly outdated approach that has been promoted by a couple of journalists and some well-intentioned but naive conservatives who have reasoned that turning the clock back would in some way pave the way for every child to learn to bark at text as a goal, instead of gaining satisfaction from constructing meaning from literature connected to their interests — and the even more dangerous acts of enshrining the methods of the past into legislation virtually outlawing, in some cases, something as basic as a multi-cueing system approach to make reading meaningful and interesting. Thank you, again, for so clearly providing information that could positively influence the pedagogy of literacy.
Coding phonics as "conservative" is misinformation and deeply misguiding.
Tell me more. I’m always looking for the error in my ways.
I've scanned the post and wasn't able to locate the word "conservative" in it. I have, however, been collecting political documents (bills proposed and passed at the federal and state level, the redesign of the NAEP reading test and its derailment by conservative ideologues, the dyslexia legislation proposed in 2021 by Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin in December, 2021, which states passed restrictive phonics laws first. I've been watching the more conservative states like Texas. The state-level method of "defined autonomy" is now a blend of liberal ideology and ultra hard right ideology. Politicals are starting to shift along the right left right now. It's not disinformation to report that Jeb Bush blessed the Common Core as did many liberals which angered the Science of Reading folks who then began taken proactive steps to enact legislation under the GOP banner re NCLB. idk. you tell me.
If you scanned Charlie's post and didn't see the word "conservative", it is there. Even if he hadn't used that word, you also seem to be pretty comfortable in running with that implication.
I was replying to Charlie, not you. Synthetic phonics has been usually coded as converservative in the past (I partially blame that stain called Bush Jr and for more than merely testing) and as something that idiot reactionaries push without knowing anything about (which they don't, so they implement it wrong). As a liberal who prefers phonics, I want to get a restraining order on those who just want to jerk teachers around and then cloak that desire in the synthetic phonics, an actually worthwhile path. To say I find "pro-phonics" conservatives disingenuous is much more polite than what I mean. I am pro-phonics and they really are doing the opposite of helping.
You won't find anybody more pro-phonics than me. I taught in private reading clinics one on one in Los Angeles for a few years and wow did those kids need phonics big time. I have a background in linguistics. It's not so much the phonics that bothers me, it's that the conservative ideologues have hijacked it and distorted what science really has to say about it. I know that reading instruction is non-partisan. But phonics has always been an easy in for them. Who's Charlie?
I appreciate your feedback, Charlie. We really are at a crossroads. Good teachers building real scientific pedagogical expertise are so badly needed. I’m hopeful I can add something to the mix and I do so much appreciate your taking the time to let me know you think so, too. 🙏