4 ms·

I'd dispute your characterization of the NEPC summary as well-reasoned. It's definitely a different perspective, but it's clear in a preference for valuing the

by pfedak 3y ago

I'd dispute your characterization of the NEPC summary as well-reasoned. It's definitely a different perspective, but it's clear in a preference for valuing the experience and beliefs of "literacy scholars" over any sort of evidence that could contradict them. It does seems like a good view of the education institution's side of this argument. It is careful to point out even minority criticism of phonics-centered instruction, while suggesting that disagreement with cueing approaches is a result of misunderstanding. It explicitly devalues "narrow" "experimental and quasi-experimental research" in favor of "decades of classroom-based and other forms of qualitative research" (how long has the experimental research been going on?). Even the naming feels slanted: the cueing approach gets called "whole language" or "balanced literacy" while opposing views start with "simple view of literacy". The "structured literacy" section ends with "although literacy researchers caution there is still much to learn about the brain and learning to read", while the cueing summary is free of similar caveats and emphasizes that it can adapt to individual students, as if other methods couldn't. Ultimately it makes no actionable recommendations for what should actually be taught, except that no particular method should be mandated or banned, and that education should be "student-centered" (curious about the alternative...).

camgunz 3y ago
I mean, I guess a good of framing this is yeah, it is "the education institution's side of this argument". I see it as informed by decades of shifting research on how to teach reading and attentive to the tension between "we need regulations to guard against bad teachers" and "we need to give teachers the freedom to apply their expertise". Most of the rest of your argument is just not realizing that those are the actual names of things (e.g. there's actually a thing called "the simple view of literacy"). And to zoom out a little, a big part of educational quality is "do good people want to teach". A heavily prescribed curriculum is one more barrier to retaining good, motivated teachers. I'm not saying phonics shouldn't be taught, and I'm not saying teachers should have the freedom to not teach it. I am saying that all the teachers I know have kids where phonics didn't work (either the kid wasn't getting it, or the kid already knew it and drilling it into them killed their passion for reading, but hey standardized testing), and that's the kind of thing that makes good people quit: you know something is counterproductive, but your boss/the man makes you do it anyway, and in this case you fail a kid. The problem is complex, which is why my 2nd bullet point was "Sold a Story omits basically any nuance for shock facts". Another way of saying this is "school isn't a restaurant where you pull up and order an education from an unskilled worker". I get that it's high stakes and people have super bad experiences with educators (I have, for sure), but we need to appreciate the nuance here.
- pfedak 3y ago
  Sorry, I should have been clearer, totally agree about the podcast being a poorer source on the reality and history, and just not trustworthy on the big picture. The article you shared is a fantastic resource, but I would think better of it if it had laid out the sort of strong, pragmatic argument you made here about teachers' autonomy. The article really doesn't want to question the status quo, which would be fine for a historical overview, but feels incongruous with the constant needling of anyone who happens to be pushing phonics (whether because of concerns about dyslexia or neuroscience). I also didn't mean to suggest those terms were invented by that article, just that they reflect the perspective of the people who use them. I'm assuming initial proponents of the "simple view of literacy" didn't describe it that way, just as we might call "whole language" something different if it ends up being discredited (cf. the focus on cueing in TFA).
  - camgunz 3y ago
    Yeah I think we're kidding ourselves if we think there's not some level of aesthetics involved here. I would imagine most teachers (not all but most) would like it if teaching were a holistic, organic journey of learning and discovery--I'm not disparaging here, that sounds nice to me too--to the point they'll really try to make those approaches work over more proven/grounded ones that are more assembly line and impersonal. And I buy that a fair amount of animosity against NCLB played a role too. > I would think better of it if it had laid out the sort of strong, pragmatic argument you made here about teachers' autonomy I wouldn't mind something more concrete either. There's educational research out there, but not a ton, and what I've read is pretty non-committal and not very prescriptive. I don't know if that's in deference to "trust teachers" or what have you. I do know that from time to time, teachers who are trying very hard to teach their kids using old, busted techniques they learned in school and are--rightfully so--super bitter when they discover "new" techniques that are decades old and proven more effective, so it's not like there's not an audience for this stuff. Mostly I think this argument is just two sides that don't trust each other at all, and they're lobbing whatever they can over the wall to try and win the argument (you don't care about dyslexia, you're dooming children to illiteracy to stick it to Bush, blah blah blah). I think that's a big problem. Education in the US is super messed up despite costing a ton, everyone knows it, and it's probably impossible to fix because of the political and bureaucratic structures involved. But it definitely doesn't help when our educators are rejecting government educational research because of (earned) political/cultural mistrust.

by pfedak 3y ago

camgunz 3y ago

I mean, I guess a good of framing this is yeah, it is "the education institution's side of this argument". I see it as informed by decades of shifting research on how to teach reading and attentive to the tension between "we need regulations to guard against bad teachers" and "we need to give teachers the freedom to apply their expertise". Most of the rest of your argument is just not realizing that those are the actual names of things (e.g. there's actually a thing called "the simple view of literacy"). And to zoom out a little, a big part of educational quality is "do good people want to teach". A heavily prescribed curriculum is one more barrier to retaining good, motivated teachers. I'm not saying phonics shouldn't be taught, and I'm not saying teachers should have the freedom to not teach it. I am saying that all the teachers I know have kids where phonics didn't work (either the kid wasn't getting it, or the kid already knew it and drilling it into them killed their passion for reading, but hey standardized testing), and that's the kind of thing that makes good people quit: you know something is counterproductive, but your boss/the man makes you do it anyway, and in this case you fail a kid. The problem is complex, which is why my 2nd bullet point was "Sold a Story omits basically any nuance for shock facts". Another way of saying this is "school isn't a restaurant where you pull up and order an education from an unskilled worker". I get that it's high stakes and people have super bad experiences with educators (I have, for sure), but we need to appreciate the nuance here.

pfedak 3y ago
Sorry, I should have been clearer, totally agree about the podcast being a poorer source on the reality and history, and just not trustworthy on the big picture. The article you shared is a fantastic resource, but I would think better of it if it had laid out the sort of strong, pragmatic argument you made here about teachers' autonomy. The article really doesn't want to question the status quo, which would be fine for a historical overview, but feels incongruous with the constant needling of anyone who happens to be pushing phonics (whether because of concerns about dyslexia or neuroscience). I also didn't mean to suggest those terms were invented by that article, just that they reflect the perspective of the people who use them. I'm assuming initial proponents of the "simple view of literacy" didn't describe it that way, just as we might call "whole language" something different if it ends up being discredited (cf. the focus on cueing in TFA).
- camgunz 3y ago
  Yeah I think we're kidding ourselves if we think there's not some level of aesthetics involved here. I would imagine most teachers (not all but most) would like it if teaching were a holistic, organic journey of learning and discovery--I'm not disparaging here, that sounds nice to me too--to the point they'll really try to make those approaches work over more proven/grounded ones that are more assembly line and impersonal. And I buy that a fair amount of animosity against NCLB played a role too. > I would think better of it if it had laid out the sort of strong, pragmatic argument you made here about teachers' autonomy I wouldn't mind something more concrete either. There's educational research out there, but not a ton, and what I've read is pretty non-committal and not very prescriptive. I don't know if that's in deference to "trust teachers" or what have you. I do know that from time to time, teachers who are trying very hard to teach their kids using old, busted techniques they learned in school and are--rightfully so--super bitter when they discover "new" techniques that are decades old and proven more effective, so it's not like there's not an audience for this stuff. Mostly I think this argument is just two sides that don't trust each other at all, and they're lobbing whatever they can over the wall to try and win the argument (you don't care about dyslexia, you're dooming children to illiteracy to stick it to Bush, blah blah blah). I think that's a big problem. Education in the US is super messed up despite costing a ton, everyone knows it, and it's probably impossible to fix because of the political and bureaucratic structures involved. But it definitely doesn't help when our educators are rejecting government educational research because of (earned) political/cultural mistrust.