Knowledge Laws
Just as the SoR ©️ used journalists to rev up parents in solidarity to call for phonics laws at the elementary school level, knowledge laws are being pushed by conservatives via newspapers, arguing for legislative action requiring secondary schools to teach statewide a curriculum organized around topics, a Tennessee-style map of cultural reality.
Texas, for example, is on the cusp of legislation which will require a statewide knowledge curriculum. The traditional curriculum organized around disciplines affords teachers some degree of topic choice, more or less, opening pathways to student choice. Under knowledge laws topics are fixed in time. Here is an example from the third grade curriculum written by Amplify1, a commercial publisher under contract with Texas contracted to write their statewide knowledge curricula:
***
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (6.20.24) published an opinion piece on knowledge laws written by Daniel Buck, a senior associate at the Fordham Institute. In this piece Buck warns the remaining states not to follow California down the garden path of child-centered pedagogy. Please, take a moment to relish the delicious irony of fossilized ideology trumping reasonable discourse:
“Most recently, under pressure from teachers unions, the Legislature killed a bill introduced by Democratic Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio that would have mandated the teaching of phonics. The bill had the support of both the state-level parent-teacher association and the NAACP—and rightly so. A mountain of research going back to the 1950s vindicates phonics as the best way to teach young children to read” (Buck, June 20, 2024, WSJ)
From teachers unions to the NAACP, from the PTA to a democratic representative, Buck chucks in everything he can find to curtail the resurrection of child-centered school laws in other states. This is bipartisan, right as rain. The radical left is behind it. Just as every state surrendered to the Core, eventually they’re all destined to have knowledge laws. But Mr. Buck, who as we shall see, is also a fervent proponent of knowledge laws, where is this mountain of research for phonics? May we, may we not construe the metaphor more toward a mole hill?
Well-known for his conservative anti-progressive perspective on teaching and learning, Buck posted a confession in a blog also dated 6/20/2024, discussing his conversion in earlier times from a raging progressive English teacher grounded in what we might call a love for children (e.g., devotee of writing workshop, project-based learning, enlightened discipline) to a teacher of classical education based on his reading of research. His personal switch in ideology wouldn’t be relevant to an argument in support of a particular curriculum in my mind. I just want to some see some research citations:
“It’s unsurprising then that research confirms that ‘the way we’ve always done it’ actually works pretty well. If it didn’t, people would have started doing it differently” (Buck, June 20, 2024
Ooof. Come on, friend, colleague. Let's break down the logic of this statement step by step. Premise 1: People have been doing it (?) one way forever (which is?). WHAT? Premise 2: If it (?) didn’t work, they (?) would have stopped doing it (it)? WHAT?? Conclusion: The old way (?) is the best way (?). omg… The first premise is not only devoid of meaning, therefore completely unsupported—can one support nothing?. The second premise is ludicrous as I will show. The conclusion is therefore meaningless and so not in need of unsupport.
Bloodletting in medicine was used for thousands of years until the late 19th century; it didn’t work for most conditions and often harmed patients; it persisted because of entrenched beliefs and lack of understanding about human physiology. Corporal punishment in schools was practiced for centuries and still is. Beating children is ineffective in improving behavior and can create psychopaths; the practice continues in some areas relying on to a certain degree common knowledge but you can check me on it because of cultural beliefs, not because of effectiveness. Just ask any child who’s been beaten.
***
Buck’s argument creates a false dichotomy. To avoid false dichotomies, Mr. Buck, explore different viewpoints and understand the complexity of the issue. Challenge arguments that present only two choices and look for underlying nuances. Think beyond binaries through education and dialogue. Frame discussions to include possibilities and alternatives rather than limiting them to binary choices. Your argument assumes only two possibilities—either something works perfectly or doesn't work at all. In reality, practices can be partially effective or have mixed results.
Your argument doesn't account for institutional, cultural, or societal factors that might keep ineffective practices in place despite their shortcomings. It assumes perfect information: It presumes that people always recognize when something isn't working and have the knowledge to implement better alternatives. Crucially, it ignores power dynamics in that sometimes practices persist because they benefit those in power, even if they don't work well for everyone.
Like most writers under the SoR ©️ banner, Buck uses hollow references empty of meaning except in the world he imagines rooted squarely in a political ideology which he calls “research.” A phrase like “research says” or “research confirms” is rarely followed by a citation in this literature, or if it is, the writer seems to have no expectation that any reader will actually follow up, and if the reader does, the researcher cited is a member of the ideology. “Research” in fact confirms that “the way we’ve always done it” whatever it might be does NOT work (cf: the Coleman Report, 1966, for a starter course).
Unsurprisingly, Buck didn’t refer to Tierney and Pearson’s 2024 monograph Fact Checking the SoR. In this monograph, the writers open by explaining their reluctance to address this issue. To be situated in a scientific argument with advocates who rule as inadmissible 90+% of the evidence—Judge Aileen Cannon squared. As I’ve said, Buck tried to poison the political context across the country by disparaging the entire state of California arguing “research says” without so much as a footnote, not a single parenthetical giving us a scientific study.
Tierney and Pearson, however, forge ahead, they do write and document evidence calling into question SoR. In their second paragraph they list the names of a veritable Reading Researcher Hall of Fame (there is one, you know, such a hall). Check out any one of them and you’ll find a high level of research expertise, a body of work, a disposition to use evidence in the service of logic, not ideology.
“We overcame our reluctance with support from one another and several colleagues whose own engagements with these matters have been inspirational. We would like to send special thanks to several individuals who served as models for us and provided vital support. They include: Maren Aukerman, Richard Beach, Sam Bommarito, Brian Cambourne, Sam DeJulio, Gina Cervetti, Nell Duke, Barbara Flores, Rachael Gabriel, Judith Green, Jim Hoffman, George Hruby, Peter Johnston, James King, Carol Lee, Allan Luke, Dixie Massey, Lesley Morrow, David Reinking, Victoria Risko, Emily Rodgers, Donna Scanlon, Peter Smagorinsky, Norman Stahl, Diane Stephens, and David Yaden. We hope that they see merit to what we have done.”
Without the baggage of authentic engagement with research, Buck moves ahead with his confession in his blog, providing a link to Hillsdale College to hold up as a model. Take a look:
“The cornerstone of this curriculum is the K-12 Program Guide, a comprehensive resource that includes all of the topics a student ought to study across the disciplines, and the order in which to study them. This complete scope and sequence covers a student's kindergarten through 12th grade journey” (Hillsdale College website).
The contrast could not be clearer. Buck has no scientific basis at all, at least none he’s willing to share. He is, however, full of political fire and brimstone, the smoldering ember of old time conservatism, Betsy DeVos. After I take a crack at rebuttal, I’ll leave you to chew on this chestnut from Buck’s Wall Street Journal take-down attempt not just of California, but of public schools:
“Fundamentally, California demonstrates what happens when a radical theory of education is put in practice. There are a handful of competing philosophies of education, and the most popular in schools of education is “critical pedagogy.” Its fundamental principle maps the Marxist oppressor-oppressed dichotomy on to the student-teacher relationship, concluding from there that the imposition of any content, any behavioral norms, any expectations is inherently oppressive. The teacher’s only role is to develop a child’s “critical consciousness,” to foster discontent with the current power structure and spur students into left-wing activism.”
This statement is clumsy at best. To assert that California has a “radical theory” of education in today’s context is to divulge a thoroughly ideological perspective on the writer’s part. He means “radical” in the sense of “terrorist.” Further, to label this theory “Marxist” doubles down on the charge that educators are imposters acting as communists. To argue that teachers go to work every day to indoctrinate children into “leftwing activism” is cynical, gratuitous, and unscientific. This brand of hyperventilating is designed for one thing: To evoke political fury, to short circuit rational thinking. It should be called out every time it appears. Buck fears critical consciousness more than he values children.
https://tea4avcastro.tea.state.tx.us/thl/Amp.K-5.TX_ELP_Overview_Final-20201110(web-spreads)%20(1)%20(1).pdf
A very important and interesting piece on the sharing of knowledge, on how we conceive today and above all on how it 'teaches' and transmits in schools and educational institutions. I think the passage I liked the most is this: "It presumes that people always recognize when something isn't working and have the knowledge to implement better alternatives". In various analyses, you have to dig deeply and it is not always easy to understand what are the unspoken things that influence the way of thinking and the patterns that emerge. I appreciated this issue for the way of writing especially in this way. Thanks for sharing Terry.
This is a fantastic posting. It goes deep and it’s detailed. It shares some important history — two things that stood out to me was the practice by SOR people that things are either all good or all bad — and the other thing that I like is the list of actual grounded researchers who have shared their work which underpins what we know about reading and literacy.