Speaker 1 (00:00:01):

Before we jump into today’s episode. I want to invite you to register for a free virtual symposium on May 19th, 2022, celebrating by literacy, realizing a better future for our Spanish speakers. During this event, you’ll discover how to celebrate and honor the unique skills, strengths, and needs your multilingual learners. Bring to the classroom as well as how to accelerate literacy development for your Spanish speakers register. Now at the link in the show notes, Dr. Claude Goldenberg joins me today in an episode that is packed with a bunch of information and some entertainment. If you don’t know his work, Dr. Goldenberg who recently retired from Stanford is a biliteracy expert whose work has been influential in moving forward evidence based literacy practices. I’m keeping this intro short, so we can just jump right in and don’t worry if you don’t have a way to take notes, you’ll be listening to this episode again and again. Well, welcome Claude. We’re so glad to have you on today’s episode. Welcome.

Speaker 2 (00:01:09):

Thanks Susan. Uh, it’s a pleasure. Thank you very much. Happy to be here.

Speaker 1 (00:01:14):

Well, you, as you know, we always like to start this by you introducing yourself and sharing with our listeners. Just a little bit of your journey and how did you, end up in this world of literacy.

Speaker 2 (00:01:25):

The world of literacy, right? Well, after college, um, my parents, my parents were living in San Antonio, Texas. And so I went to San Antonio and I taught there for two years. I taught, uh, junior high back in the day. We called it junior Heights. Now middle school. I feel like I always have to.

Speaker 1 (00:01:43):

I remember those days.

Speaker 2 (00:01:45):

I bet you do. Um, so I taught junior high reading and history, um, for two years. Um, my first year I had five periods of very low readers. The, the principal I interviewed with said, well, we got, we got a, a place for you. I got kids who are so low that I took away their <laugh>. I took away their, their elective and told ’em they have to take reading mm-hmm <affirmative> so you wanna do that? <laugh> so of course, outta college, I thought, well, the more impossible, the, the more better, I mean, I’m right, I’m in it, you know, this is what I’m this what I’m coming for. So, um, um, I took the position and honestly, I was just, I was just shocked at, at the kids, uh, that they were, they were so low. I had some literal non-res. These were like eighth graders who were anywhere from five to eight years behind in reading.

Speaker 2 (00:02:45):

I, and more like reading at a pre PRI level. I mean, the idea that you’d give a beginning teacher, this assignment is, well, we can leave that for another day, but that, that the principal really was not on his game, shall we say? But in any case I took the job and I was just, I realized very shortly thereafter that I was just woefully unprepared. I, I just could not really. I mean, I had a lot of ideals, a lot of ambition in terms of doing the right thing for the kids, but, you know, I took a couple of classes and reading the local university, but I, I was really kind of lost, but, you know, I sort of muddled through, um, then I decided to go to go back to graduate school to sort of learn more about child development. And at that point, reading per se, wasn’t my interest, although I was teaching reading.

Speaker 2 (00:03:34):

So I got a little bit into that literature, but it was really just the, the, the horror state of the educational achievement of these students. So I went to graduate school and see if, um, I couldn’t learn more. And then during the course of my graduate years, I came to see literacy really as a linchpin of education. Uh, I mean, certainly formal education, right? Which, you know, human beings have invented many different forms in order to make sure that some of the succeeding generation have the knowledge and tools, you know, to keep the society going. And of course, we also know that those opportunities to gain the knowledge and skills are not equitably distributed. So this both, you know, reflects, but in also perpetuates the inequities in our society, in our societies. It’s not unique to United States by any means. Sure. So for all these reasons, you know, the centrality of literacy, the unequal and unfair access to literacy and what it affords to people I decided was where I wanted to focus my efforts and in particular literacy for histor and currently disadvantaged in marginalized populations.

Speaker 1 (00:04:46):

So did you find that that, uh, graduate program helped prepare you for classroom? Or did it spur you more into your curiosity about what kids need? What, what path did it take?

Speaker 2 (00:04:59):

Well, the most immediate path it took was the dissertation. The study that I did was on, um, uh, Hispanic, Latino kids in a very poor area. It was actually like an immigrant entry point for many, many students and their families. And I taught, I, I did the, my dissertation at the school that had a bilingual program. And, you know, I, I discovered some really important, interesting things about what differentiated success and lack of success. And I decided that, uh, after I finished my dissertation, that I, I was so learned in the area of early literacy <laugh> that I wanted the, I own the U I own have my own classroom to use as my laboratory and to be able to demonstrate things that I had learned that I thought I knew. And, um, so I taught first grade for three or four years after finishing my PhD and I focused on, on literacy, literacy development, homeschool connections, and various aspects of that. That’s what I did. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (00:06:06):

Interesting. So going from junior high, down to first grade, and then a, a PhD and taking, you know, a, like an, a more unusual path, right, right. Back into the classroom, how did you find that, uh, sort of differences between teaching junior high and teaching first grade? Cause that’s a, that’s a big change.

Speaker 2 (00:06:27):

Yeah. Well, let me count the ways <laugh>,

Speaker 1 (00:06:30):

<laugh>

Speaker 2 (00:06:31):

Let’s just say that my, my junior high kids had lot of positive quality, these, but passing through adolescence was not one of them. <laugh> I remember, I, I wasn’t particularly fond of my adolescence and I wasn’t particularly fond of theirs either. It was a, a challenge and, and teaching first grade was also a challenge, but in a very different way. I mean, I, I, I have to say that the younger kids, um, I, I, I really just personally enjoyed interacting with them. Now. I had a lot of colleagues in junior high who love that age. And I know there are people around the country, you know, teachers who love

Speaker 1 (00:07:07):

That, that goodness. Right.

Speaker 2 (00:07:08):

<laugh> thank goodness. And God bless them, you know, because those kids need people who love working with them. You know, the thing they’re one minute they’re mature wealth formed adults. The next minute they’re cry, babies and immature. And you just, can’t reason with them. I mean, that’s the nature of adolescences in our society for, for better, for worse. And it, it was hard in addition to all the, you know, achievement questions of teaching, the read and teaching history and the low levels of achievement, adolescent, you know, storm and drunk. I mean, that’s what adolescents is all about out. So I really like six year olds, much better.

Speaker 1 (00:07:42):

<laugh> oh, well, bless you for that. And for our listeners, you’re actually, you’re actually BI literate yourself. Right? So you speak Spanish, English, read, write all that in both languages.

Speaker 2 (00:07:55):

Yeah. I mean, I’m originally from Argentina. I was born a Tina. My parents came to the states when, and I came to the states when I was three. So Spanish was my first language. Um, English is now my dominant language because I’ve had all my education here and I’m, you know, far more proficient in English and, you know, all aspects of English language, you know, I’m, I’m, I’m fluent. I can read and write, not particularly, well, if I have to write anything in Spanish, I email it to my mom.

Speaker 2 (00:08:27):

Correct my spelling and accent free writing and so forth. But yeah, but I mean, as long as you mentioned, you know, my parents actually provided me with a world class bilingual education, cuz they insisted that I speak Spanish at home. They said ake. I mean, they were very unambiguous about that. And I resisted, you know, because you learn English, that’s the Lang the language of status and the society. I mean, I was all set rattling off in English. They wouldn’t have it, you speak Spanish at home. And, and they said, you’re gonna thank us one day.

Speaker 1 (00:09:02):

And here you are thanking them. And this day

Speaker 2 (00:09:04):

Here I am thanking them. And I, I actually, one of my, one of my books, I dedicated them for providing me with a world class bilingual education.

Speaker 1 (00:09:13):

Hmm that’s that’s so powerful. And we’ll, we’ll talk about it. I’m sure. In, in a few minutes, but just this idea that honoring, respecting that home language that students come in and not just that, but continuing to help them develop in it helps them then develop as readers and writers in English too.

Speaker 2 (00:09:32):

I, I think so the big controversy and we can get into it later, but the big controversy is what is, what should be the school’s role in that? Because ironically, if there had been bilingual education 65 years ago, <laugh> which there wasn’t at least not where I was, uh, my guess is my parents would’ve resisted putting me in bilingual education because they say, we want ’em to learn English in school. We’ll take here of the Spanish. Hmm. And in fact, I’ve had several, I had several conversations with my father who just didn’t understand what’s all this bilingual education stuff. You didn’t have bilingual education and you turned out basically, okay,

Speaker 1 (00:10:09):

<laugh>

Speaker 2 (00:10:10):

Okay. Point noted. But I told him there’s some differences and, and we have different, you know, populations who don’t come with the social capital. My, my parents were college educated people, right. I had literacy and academic language and all those sociocultural resources in the home. And a lot of the kids who come to schools, speaking a language of an English, don’t have those resources in the home. So it’s not that those parents don’t provide, I support can’t be helpful. But I had the advantage of having the kind of interactions at home that you have in a college educated home with the kind of work that you do at school, that’s academic supposed to be, you know, by its nature. And so the combination of those was extremely powerful. So I, I had to explain to my dad that our context was very different from the, the predominant context, uh, throughout the country for many of the emergent bilinguals that we teach in our schools.

Speaker 2 (00:11:09):

And then even if they were the same, the school still has a role to play. You can still play a role in an academic program promoting, supporting biliteracy. See, in fact, I think if I were in that, if I had been in that kind of program, there’s a good chance that my literacy skills in Spanish would’ve been stronger than, than they are now. I took Spanish in high school and that actually didn’t help my, my oral language. I, I learned all sorts of things about the subjunctive and the Pret and all those fine points of language that I didn’t know existed. But when I took Spanish, formally, I learned about them and I learned about accenting. I, I systematically, informally learned about my first language in a way that I never learned my, my mom taught me to read. And, and that was a real springboard for me once I got to school. But beyond that and making me write letters to my grandmother and so forth, there was very little formal education in the Spanish language and Spanish literacy. And I think I could have benefited from that if I had been in a bilingual program, but you know, you speculation.

Speaker 1 (00:12:14):

Hmm. That’s interesting. We will get into that biliteracy, um, piece in, in just a little bit, but hearing me hearing no. Hmm. Let me say that again. Me hearing you talk about that development, uh, helps me realize that this, this term science of reading, right. It’s I haven’t decided CLA if it’s ubiquitous, if it’s like them or fighting words, I it’s clearly not as deeply understood as, as what it needs to be. So I’m gonna ask you this. When, when, when I say science of reading, since this is science of reading the podcast, when I say science of reading, what does the that mean to you?

Speaker 2 (00:12:56):

Right. Well, Susan, this might shock you <laugh>, but I think of, are you ready to be shocked?

Speaker 1 (00:13:03):

Ready? I’m ready. Bring it on.

Speaker 2 (00:13:05):

But I think of a bog as in, we get bogged down with labels that mean different things to different people. And I think science of reading is the latest example of this. There, there are plenty of others. And since you asked me about science of reading, let me pick on science of reading. Now on the one hand, I think science is a good thing. I, I think it’s a very good thing and scientific research on reading with you, call it science or not makes no difference to me to, but research on reading has helped us understand a wide range of really very, very important things. For example, how, how essential it is to teach foundational skills to beginning readers. So they can tightly link or, or bind is the term in some of the literature, the sounds of the language with the letters and the letter of combinations that represent those sounds.

Speaker 2 (00:14:01):

Now this is usually called phonics or decoding. Some people call it common sense. I, I won’t take down. I won’t take that on any further. Other than to say that it is a bit more complicated with aspects that are really less obvious, but whatever you call it, linking the sounds of the language, the representation and print in the spelling system is absolutely essential for learning to read and write. Right? We also know that we can identify and intervene early with kids who are at risk for reading difficulties and that those difficulties spraying from different really different causes, even though they might, as a doctor say present very similarly, they result from very different causes and that if we instruct and intervene appropriately, we can really head off a number of, um, a number of reading difficulties, particularly, particularly at the beginning and early stages. And we also know that continued development reading and writing requires a whole lot more than just foundational skills as foundational as they are really reading development requires more than that. It requires aspects of language development. It requires background knowledge. It requires direct experience that helps you contextualize what you’re reading. It requires increased levels of motivation that that’ll keep you, you engaged and work at understanding and, and, and further development as a, as a reader. So these are all very important insights and knowledge that that’s been gained from reading research or science of reading. If you, you know, prefer that term.

Speaker 1 (00:15:50):

Can I ask you a question? Be yeah. Yes. Ask of course. Yeah. Before you, before you go on, let me ask you this question. So since you, um, we’re gonna talk about, uh, biliteracy later, those principles apply to whether you’re learning English or let’s say whether you’re learning Spanish, am I right? That’s still the same, the same things you still have to understand to be a reader and comprehend what you’re reading.

Speaker 2 (00:16:11):

Yes. At absolutely. Absolutely. It, it, I mean, and there’s, there’s actually a worldwide literature on what are the, the, the essentials of learning to read. And it it’s particularly true for alphabet languages, but it turns out it’s also true for idiographic and you know, languages with different characteristics, but let’s focus on alphabet languages, right? That letters and letter combinations in writing represent the sounds of the language. The sounds contained, in words, any alphabet language, the foundation of learning to read is linking the sounds of the language with their visual representations across the board. Hmm. And as maybe we’ll get, and it’s true, even if you’re learning to read a language that you are simultaneously learning to speak and understand the difference is if you don’t know the language, as you’re learning to read it, you also have to be taught the meanings of the words and the texts that are being used to teach you to read the process is the same, but that the semantic system of the language, right? What the words mean? You can’t take those for granted. Whereas if you’re six years old and you speak English and you’re learning to read in English, you can assume that the student understand the words that you’re using to teach in. Theri run. I see. Stop. Mm-hmm <affirmative> you do an English language development lesson with English speakers, but kids who don’t know the language, you need to make sure they’re understanding the words that you’re using to teach them to read. That’s the fundamental difference.

Speaker 1 (00:17:57):

Got it. We’ll unpack more of that later. So I know I totally interrupted you cuz you were gonna give us another, what else you,

Speaker 2 (00:18:04):

What

Speaker 1 (00:18:04):

Else you believe outside of reading? So go back

Speaker 2 (00:18:06):

Another part of the bog,

Speaker 1 (00:18:09):

Right? There you go.

Speaker 2 (00:18:10):

I hope no one’s offended by that, but <laugh> okay. So, so let me talk a little bit more about science. So there are, uh, many aspects to science, uh, some get privileged, shall we say more than others? So science is not all randomized control trials. I mean, they’re important, right? I mean that, that’s a way of getting some knowledge that if not definitive is, let’s say a little more secure than simply observing or doing correlations or ethnographic studies. So there’s a place for different forms of knowledge in the, let’s say in the, in the empire of science, if you wanna call it an empire, but there are two things that are true of any sort of science that I know about. One is precision or, or clarity. They mean slightly different things, but I’m gonna kind of use ’em interchangeably, precision and clarity. The other is skepticism and both of these are lacking in the discussion over science of reading. And I can give you an example from both sides of the fence, so to speak

Speaker 1 (00:19:15):

Great.

Speaker 2 (00:19:16):

First of all, um, from the science of reading side of the fence, <laugh> I hope I don’t get in too much trouble with my science of reading colleagues, but be that as it may. So science of reading advocates, uh, love to site a group of very important studies that were reviewed by Joe Torgeson in 2004 in a really important but way underside paper, an American educator, you know, the AFT publication

Speaker 1 (00:19:42):

Mm-hmm <affirmative> yep.

Speaker 2 (00:19:44):

In this article, Torgeson really persuasively demonstrated that we have the tools to help as many as 95% of all kids get to at least low average in reading level, by the end of second grade. Okay. Now this sounds very modest, but it’s not trivial because in fact it would be a hugely important accomplishment if we were to do this on a national scale, right? So I’m not downplaying, it’s an importance at all, but here’s, what’s rarely discussed. First reading level is a bit misleading because what Toon and the other researchers were referring to were word reading skills, sometimes called word attack skills. It’s a little militaristic I’m afraid, but that’s what they’re called. And there are subtest, there’s that labeled word attack skills. You can unpackage that with a linguistics person you have on your <laugh>

Speaker 1 (00:20:42):

Great

Speaker 2 (00:20:42):

On your podcast later on, but I’m not gonna touch that. Just pointing it out. So, okay. That’s a very important part of reading, word, attack, skills, word, reading accuracy. Um, but it’s a pretty constrained definition of what reading actually is. And you know, I never see this acknowledged except in ton’s review, which everyone should read by the way. And, and if you have, and I would strongly suggest, and I’d be glad to, you know, send you a link to it. Yeah. Torgus himself, you know, who’s one of the leading lights and researchers in the field of beginning and early reading and prevention of reading difficult. He, he acknowledged this in the article and he said, and this is a direct quote, this meaning word, reading skills. This cannot be considered the ultimate for the effectiveness of early preventive instruction. Have you ever heard that acknowledged? I haven’t.

Speaker 1 (00:21:36):

I’ve read the article multiple times. Um, tell our listeners why you think that is so important

Speaker 2 (00:21:43):

Because it’s a, because it’s a very constrained definition. What reading is as important as word attack skills and word reading skills are important. One might say foundational, it’s a very constrained definition. There’s much more to reading than that. And if that’s what you cite and that’s what you claim is gonna pull kids outta the bottom quartile and not acknowledge that you’re talking about a very important but limited aspect of reading, then you’re not telling the whole story.

Speaker 1 (00:22:19):

Can I say, can I phrase that another way? Just to be sure that I have some, some understanding here, what you’re saying is those word level reading skills. You have to have those mm-hmm <affirmative>, but there’s a lot more that we need to develop in students when we’re talking about being great proficient, comprehends, and readers. Mm-hmm <affirmative> that that’s only one element and we need to make sure we talk about all these other elements.

Speaker 2 (00:22:46):

That’s right. And we need to be very clear about what we’re claiming when we say rather loosely that toin and the studies reviews showed that you can get kids out of the bottom quartile. If you focus on these foundational skills, it’s true, but it’s incomplete.

Speaker 1 (00:23:04):

Mm-hmm

Speaker 2 (00:23:05):

<affirmative> right. And, and a big part of that incompleteness comes in another form in other aspect of what Tosin says, because as important as we acknowledge those things, are they, they say, no, these studies say nothing about preventing reading difficulties from grade three and beyond. Since we know from other research that hitting at least low average and reading skill is after grade two requires a whole lot more than foundational skills. You know, the things that I mentioned, language, background, knowledge, et cetera, et cetera. And again, himself in this article, challenges the reading community, particularly researchers to do the work, to enable us to hit that mark from grade three and up mm-hmm <affirmative> and nothing that I’ve seen, nor anyone that I’ve asked, indicates that we’re close to meeting what you might call the Torgus and challenge, you know, maybe they have, and I just haven’t seen it or heard of it, but I haven’t heard or read anything that’s been said, or I haven’t heard or, or read everything’s been published. So it, you know, I might have missed it. But the fact is that rarely gets discussed. In fact, I never hear it discussed by science of reading advocates who have a very basis for certain claims, but don’t acknowledge that it’s a fairly constrained cl set of claims that can be made.

Speaker 1 (00:24:35):

Can I, I’m gonna ask you a follow up on that because, um, here on like science of reading, like on the podcast, the way we define science of reading as we use, or I do, uh, the framework of the simple view of reading, making it very clear that word recognition is only one element. And that language comprehension also needs to develop to be developed, not just at third grade, but starting already when kids come to us in kindergarten. And we can do that even with text through a read aloud environment, or, but that it’s very important. We start that language development and language comprehension starting in kindergarten. Do you agree with that?

Speaker 2 (00:25:18):

Yes. Yes I have. I have no, I have no problem with that. Um, but the, the, let’s say the evidentiary base, the science mm-hmm <affirmative> on which different parts of those statements are based vary in their kind of robustness, right? Their

Speaker 1 (00:25:36):

Makes sense.

Speaker 2 (00:25:36):

Their scientific is whatever term you want. The knowledge base in many respects is very solid and very secure. And in other respects is still kind of speculative. And, you know, there’s, there’s much more to know and understand. And my concern is that when science of reading gets interpreted in fairly superficial, incomplete and imprecise way, that gets translated into policies in the state legislation, into department of education requirements, standards, and mandates that are equally superficial. And don’t tell a full story, don’t tell the full picture and people walk away thinking, well, simple view of, are you using the simple view of reading method? Well, that’s not a method <laugh>, you know, that’s a way of thinking about the elements and even that has it’s the limitations, even though I have no objection. I mean, I think Phil Goff made a huge contribution as to Joe Toon as all these other giants that we try to stand on, but I, by identifying this, but the story is more complex and is being built out.

Speaker 2 (00:26:43):

And there are elements that don’t get as much attention as they should. Partly I think because the knowledge base around foundational skills is so solid. I mean, it’s got its own quirks, right? And it’s own incisions and it’s own, you know, it’s very prob ballistic. There’s, there’s very little that is guaranteed in the world of education. We have to think in terms of, I mean, and people don’t like to think in, in probabilistic terms, if you do certain things in education, you’re not guaranteed some result, you either increase or decrease the probability of getting what you want. Mm-hmm <affirmative> and, you know, I was just reading an article yesterday about the problem with discussing public policy. That’s nothing reading is that people don’t think like economists, well, of course not. And people don’t think IM probabilistic terms, you know, they want, they want certainty. They want assurance. And I understand that, but there is no certainty. There is no assurance there’s probabilities greater or lesser, depending on the kind of things that you do and don’t do.

Speaker 1 (00:27:40):

Right. And our goal then is to take those high probability concepts and, and work through those to give our kids the best chance at learning how to read.

Speaker 2 (00:27:52):

Absolutely. And, and right now I can tell you that it’s, I don’t know, I don’t wanna be melodramatic, but it’s a crime. I mean, it’s a crying shame. If nothing else that we don’t have fully implemented throughout the country, a strong emphasis on foundational skills as the foundation, as the basis of becoming literate mm-hmm <affirmative>. And they’re like the reasons why we don’t, uh, we might get into this later on, but it, if nothing else that should be put in place, and it’s a failure of implementation, failure of implementation, not a, of the science that we haven’t done that in all 50 states territories and everywhere else.

Speaker 1 (00:28:31):

Hmm. One last question on that. And then we’re gonna, we’re gonna jump to another question. Um, if you, so about this, the evidence base and, and like that’s really strong and foundational skills, but sort of these other language elements, um, if you could wave your magic PhD wand, where would you, where would you like to see more, more research in what areas to help us with that?

Speaker 2 (00:28:57):

Yeah, no, that’s a, that’s a good question. Um, and if I get a PhD wand, I’ll let you know and I’ll thank

Speaker 1 (00:29:03):

You. Check

Speaker 2 (00:29:04):

I’ll check back with you in case I’ve forgotten something. No, I, I think language development is, uh, phenomenally important. Uh, now, as you know, I work with English learners, so that’s particularly salient in, in my field and, and you know, my colleagues and so forth, but it’s true across the board, uh, because as Touson pointed out and other PE, and even the simple view says, um, without really advanced and developing levels of language proficiency, your ability to progress in terms of literacy is really constrained. Mm-hmm <affirmative>. Now there, there are lots of aspects of this lot of issues. Some of them ideological, some of them political, some, you know, philosophical and theoretical practical. So there are lots of dimensions to this, um, including the fact that some people resist the notion of say, um, casting standard English, academic, English, as the lingual go for everyone.

Speaker 2 (00:30:01):

I mean, you know, there are many dimensions to this, but putting those aside for a moment, there’s just no doubt that if, if kids don’t develop language in a, in a comprehensive and progressive sort of way, um, their literacy skills are gonna be limited. And part of the problem is developing language, as I’m talking about requires lots of things, not just knowing more words, as important as vocabulary is, and not just having a grasp of syntax, but the amount of background knowledge that you need both specific to what you’re reading, but also more generally to kind of like word world knowledge mm-hmm <affirmative>, uh, is considerable is, is tremendous. And we know that all of these things matter, but we don’t really have a good handle on how to accelerate their development. I mean, it’s particularly problematic for English learners, but not just English learners.

Speaker 2 (00:30:54):

You know, kids who speak, you know, limited English for whatever reason, uh, because they, they, they speak a ver of a, a version of English, of a variety of English, which is valid and true in its, in its own context. In the general school context, it’s a disadvantage, not being highly proficient in the language, the academic language, that’s the coin of the realm in, in schools. And I know even for English learners, we have very poor knowledge base on how to accelerate English language development. And most of that limited studies, and even those are at very beginning, very beginning stages. So we have some studies of vocabulary development, you know, later on middle school and middle elementary and middle school and on up and vocabulary is important. Um, but we, you don’t have a real robust, robust knowledge base because the transfer from learning vocabulary words to actually then improving your reading achievement, there is some bump, right? It’s not nothing, but it’s very, very modest. So we have a lot to work on in that domain.

Speaker 1 (00:32:03):

Well, that that’s great. So calling all researchers or wanna be researchers, um, maybe we can recruit some of them to, to fill in the gaps of this research. That would be amazing.

Speaker 2 (00:32:15):

Well, let’s hope so. And if you recruit them, Susan, what I would say is put to them the Torgus and challenge, cuz he really laid down a marker. He really laid down an, an important marker. You might say, okay, well you pick the low, low hanging fruit. No it’s not low hanging fruit. One of the problems, one of the things I run into is people who kind of disparage the science of reading, whatever you call it is that, well, it emphasizes phonics, which is not true, but they think it emphasizes only phonics. And they say, well, you know, that’s, that’s the easy part. Heck no, it’s not, it’s not the easy part. And if it were so easy, why isn’t everyone on board having at least at this low average level word attack skills, right? So the notion that learning the foundational skills, phonics, decoding, <affirmative>, you know, I, I, I hear that from lots of people.

Speaker 1 (00:33:03):

Uh, I love that you said that because yeah, if it was easy, we would be doing it and there’s nothing about developing proficient readers. That’s actually easy proficient readers and writers. I should add that for sure.

Speaker 2 (00:33:13):

For sure. Absolutely. AB that’s a good point. Absolutely. I, I use reading and literacy inter interchangeably, which yeah, I know is Imre, you know, violating my own, my own rule of precision, but I’m glad you mentioned that. Absolutely. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (00:33:25):

So

Speaker 2 (00:33:25):

Susan, can I, I know you were gonna ask me, but I wanted to give you an example of lack of precision from the other side of the fence. Just,

Speaker 1 (00:33:31):

Oh, I forgot about that. Yes.

Speaker 2 (00:33:32):

Just for equal time. Is

Speaker 1 (00:33:33):

That okay for sure? Oh, absolutely.

Speaker 2 (00:33:37):

Cause I wanna be, I wanna be even handed my, whatever it’s <laugh> um,

Speaker 2 (00:33:43):

So you know, there there’s a lot of, uh, I, I mentioned skepticism as an important part of science that most people, I mean, I rarely hear being talked about, uh, certainly in this context, I mean, people just don’t acknowledge it. So, uh, I, and there’s certainly a lot of that in science of reading, but, but I also from, but from the standpoint of reading of reading, reading science skeptics, which mm-hmm, <affirmative> include a lot of people as, as you well know. Yeah. Um, there, there’s a lot of misunderstanding. A lot of, I should say skepticism fueled by a combination of misunderstanding and legitimate skepticism. I mean there’s legitimate room for skepticism of reading research mm-hmm <affirmative>, but when it’s fueled by misunderstanding, then, then that’s just not a good thing. Um, now science of reading advocates have contributed someone that misunderstanding, uh, as I indicated, but beyond that there’s more misunderstanding and lots of suspicion.

Speaker 2 (00:34:50):

And one of these misunderstandings is what actually constitutes foundational skills. So as I, as I mentioned, uh, as you know, foundational skills are those that link or bind the letters with the sounds to enable decoding and word recognition. Okay. Mm-hmm <affirmative> so what happens is that a lot of the skeptics say that science of reading has led to states mandating 90 minute of phonics and decoding instruction. Now, when I first heard this, I thought, well, that sounds strange. I mean, first of all, it’s a, that’s a very bad idea. <laugh> I mean, I would never subscribe to that and I don’t know any signs of reading people who would subscribe to it, but it turns out just to cut to the punchline here. It’s it’s it turns out that people were confusing foundational skills with, uh, those five pillars that the national reading panel identified as essential for early reading instruction.

Speaker 2 (00:35:55):

Well, the five pillar are the foundational skills plus vocabulary and comprehension. So when people complain that some states and districts mandate 90 minutes of phonics decoding what they actually mean, but don’t realize it is that states and districts mandate 90 minutes of those five pillars, pH logic, awareness, fun, which includes letter sound, knowledge and decoding fluency, and four and five vocabulary and comprehension. Now we can certainly disagree whether those five should be the sum and substance of early reading instruction. Okay. We can disagree. That’s a legitimate question, but at least let’s be clear and precise about what it is we’re taught about. And it turns out that’s harder than it would seem. So there are a lot of phonic skeptics, which, and skepticism is not a bad thing. It’s part of science, right? Absolutely part of science. But if you’re skeptical because you don’t understand certain things, that’s never a good thing.

Speaker 1 (00:36:58):

Oh, <affirmative>, you know, I’ve never thought about that Claude about, uh, a misunderstanding between the five pillars that came up from national reading panel and what foundational skills are and how people maybe conflate those two things. And so I’m glad you called that out because I’m gonna keep my ears open for that now.

Speaker 2 (00:37:15):

Yeah. Well, you know, and let me know if you hear it and, or converse, if you, you don’t hear it, who knows, uh, you know, everyone might have listened to this podcast and, and be disused of that confusion or they might disagree. I mean, yeah. You never know.

Speaker 1 (00:37:30):

Yeah. You never know. Well, we’ll find out because our listeners are pretty good about, um, sending us comments and feedback. So I’ll let, I’ll let you know if we get any feedback on that one. Um, so this leads then to an article that you authored with our friend Margaret Goldberg, she’s amazing. Um, just a plug for her, um, recently and the reading teacher. So re by recently, I mean, Feb February, right? So it’s February. Yeah. Mm-hmm <affirmative> and I think

Speaker 2 (00:37:58):

It’s the last that came out.

Speaker 1 (00:37:59):

Yeah, I think so too. Uh, I kind of forget what month we’re in right now, but yes, <laugh> um, and the title of the article, I’m gonna read it because I have to read it with the correct punctuation here. So the title of the article or the, the piece is called lessons, learned reading wars reading first and way forward. Did you hear me like articulate that question mark in there?

Speaker 2 (00:38:21):

I did. Your inflection was spot on

Speaker 1 (00:38:25):

<laugh>. Thank you very much. So my question is what prompted the two of you to write that piece?

Speaker 2 (00:38:32):

Yeah. I’m glad, I’m glad you asked that. You know, uh, I love the shout out to Margaret I’m. I’m a huge fan. Um, you know, I heard her on some webinars and read some of her posts and she actually contacted me a couple of times to do, I don’t know, just some questions. And I was, I was always so impressed by her ability to present really important for findings and insights from those search as they apply to what classroom teachers need to do to help all kids learn to read, but at the same time, and this is what really captured me at the same time, she was supremely empathic and understanding of, of the tough spot that so many teachers are in. And this is even before, before the pandemic. I mean, it really was. I mean, it’s in spades, right? It’s I mean, unspeakable now, but even before the, the pandemic that teachers were in a tough spot and how hard it is to, to change.

Speaker 2 (00:39:31):

And they give up assumptions and beliefs that have defied, you know, their practices and to which they feel such commitment. In some cases, I’m, you know, religious commitments that are sort of aided and Abett by some of the thought leaders. I remember Ken Goodman talking about whole language as being a whole language symposium, being like a revival meeting. So they actually fueled a lot of this sort of just like Zet tree. So when teachers in that position, it makes it very hard to kind of reconsider think outside the box, you know, choose your cliche. Mm-hmm <affirmative>. So, you know, teachers have challenging jobs. That’s not new news. Um, particularly with kids who don’t have the same opportunities as mine and I suspect, you know, years had, and, and they’ve not been given the best tools to work with as far as, you know, research and successful practice and so forth.

Speaker 2 (00:40:27):

So anyway, I just, I just emailed Margaret one day and we chatted and, um, I just proposed that we write something together. I, I figured I couldn’t miss learning something useful from her. And she seemed like such a engaging insightful person. So anyway, we started batting around topics and it really took us several months and several false starts before we landed on, on this topic. And, and the spark was really something that I think almost an offhand comment that she made either to me or in one of the zoom gatherings. And she said that we don’t want a repeat of reading first.

Speaker 2 (00:41:10):

So I’d been sort of thinking along the same lines, but hadn’t articulated it quite as crisply. And it turns out that she, she lived through reading first as on, on the front lines, as a, as a teacher, a pretty freshly minted teacher. This was in the, as you know, the early two thousands and around then. And she got her teaching credential and started teaching. And she started teaching in a pretty affluent district. And, and the, the things that were going on before reading first, you know, the balanced literacy and so forth, you know, they seemed to work pretty well and no one had any problems. And so then reading first came in, she changed another district where the challenges were quite different. And, And she, she said, you know, there are definitely some lessons to be learned there. And I was thinking along the same lines. And so we decided to try to, you know, draw them out and try to speak to the current moment where we Bo both saw inklings of another road down the reading first path.

Speaker 1 (00:42:18):

Can you for our listeners that maybe don’t know what reading first is, maybe they’re young in the classroom and don’t remember those days. Can you give us a quick, quick history lesson?

Speaker 2 (00:42:30):

Sure. Well, reading first was a, um, followed in the heels of no child left behind, you know, the, the signature education legislation of the Bush administration and reading first, um, the purpose of reading first was to encourage states to develop policies <affirmative>. So that scientifically based reading research, what science of reading was called 20 years ago, right? Old wine, new bottles, blah, blah, blah <laugh>,

Speaker 2 (00:43:07):

Um, to encourage states to implement that in their, in their schools, in their districts and in their schools. Now states were not required to do reading first. It’s very important. Uh, I mean the federal government there’s very little that can require, I mean, all, all they can do is withhold funds. Mm-hmm <affirmative>, um, which is requirement enough, you know, cuz most school districts will do what they can states school district will do what they can to get those funds. So even though technically they weren’t required, uh, these funds that would support materials and professional development and all sorts of, you know, good things that that districts need. If they wanted access to those funds, then they had to commit to implementing scientifically based reading research, uh, in their states and then make available through a, a sort of a grant offering, uh, procedure make, uh, uh, make available to districts this fund with the same proviso that they would establish district policies to implement scientifically based reading research.

Speaker 2 (00:44:16):

Right. So that was the whole point and purpose of reading first. And it’s useful to know kind of the, kind of the organizational structure, because when people say this is the federal government intruding on reading policy, that’s, that’s not exactly correct because states could have said, no, we’re not interested in that. We’re not gonna do it, but it turns out I think 49 states, um, plus the bureau of Indian affairs. And I think they went, they went after the funds and they became reading first states. Now not all school districts applied for the funds. Some district were not interested mm-hmm but you know, a lot of districts did. And so in, in the final analysis, only a minority of school districts around the country implemented reading first, but those that did signed on to the whole notion of science for based reading research, specifically implementing those five pillars, the, that the national reading panel had stipulated.

Speaker 1 (00:45:14):

Got it. Got it. And, and then why did you and Margaret feel like this was a really good example, what can we take from that to what’s happening now?

Speaker 2 (00:45:23):

Right, right, right, right. Well, um, I mean, I mean the simple reason was that that we saw we were going down the same road. Right. And we didn’t wanna repeat of it. And um, and, and we knew that there were different narratives about what happened with reading first, for some people, uh, reading first was not a failure. It worked where it worked and there’s a whole narrative around that. Mm-hmm, <affirmative> complete with lessons about it failing where it didn’t work because of political undermining failure to implement malfeasance inside. Now outside of the program, right. For others, reading first was an absolute failure, complete, utter, absolute failure. And there was, as you probably know, a national evaluation that concluded modest effects on decoding skills, a basic reading mm-hmm <affirmative> and no effect on comprehension, right? Not much the show for a billion dollars a year investment that by the last year, the fi fiscal 2008 had been cut down to under 400 million, which reading first defenders or apologies said that was part of the problem that never fully funded it. So neither these two narratives is wholly accurate as you, as you might imagine. Uh, and we, we were fortunate in that Reed lion, who was the architect of reading first was incredible in helping us piece together a more realistic and accurate portrayal of what happened, why and what the lessons are. Would you like to hear some of those lessons

Speaker 1 (00:47:00):

I’m dying, I’m dying to hear, <laugh>

Speaker 2 (00:47:03):

Need to know, need to know basis

Speaker 1 (00:47:05):

<laugh>

Speaker 2 (00:47:06):

Well, there’s several I’m, I’m gonna highlight two. I think the fundamental ones, um, great. The first and the most important lesson is that you just can’t bulldoze through reading policies and classroom reading practices where educators really don’t fully understand what the rationale is and their, and why they’re being required to implement them. You know, education is famously the organizational theorists like call it loosely, coupled. So loosely coupled enterprise, which means that policies dictated from on high are very hard to implement throughout the system. You know, each level has a fair amount of autonomy all the way down to the, I I say that advisedly all the way down to the classroom teacher, which is where, you know, as they say, the rubber hits the road, right? And there’s a fair amount of autonomy at each of these lessons. You know, you can do implementation walkthroughs and check on people as was done for sure, during reading first, but you know, when the observer is gone, you don’t really know what’s going, you know, I suppose that if you have a talker posting on a regular basis, you might know something, but you know, there was no TikTok in the early two thousands <laugh> so people make the unfortunate assumption.

Speaker 2 (00:48:23):

And, and I I’ve actually heard this voiced explicitly that you implement education policy in the same way you command an army. <affirmative> really, I mean, that is just preposterous. And if that’s your theory of implement, yeah. If that’s your theory of implementation, then you should join the military. You’ll be very happy. And at home there, secondly, and very tightly related to this first issue, teachers have to understand why they’re being required. And I don’t even like to talk in terms of requirements since it sends a really a terrible message, but why they are required, recommended strongly encouraged, whatever you prefer to use, why they are expected to do this, rather than that, you know, a clear rationale for this, rather than that was never adequately spelled out as far as we can tell. And from Margaret’s direct experience. Hmm. She never heard that. Yeah. The communication and the professional development was wholly inadequate, often boiling down to do this because it’s the policy now that’s not made up, that’s not hyperbole.

Speaker 2 (00:49:28):

That was actually in reading first documents that went out to reading programs around the country. I mean, it’s documented there, there, there’s no secret here, but teachers need to be helped to understand that the dominant theory or approach to early literacy known as balanced literacy or three Qing, both of which are direct descendants of whole language, they needed to understand that it was simply raw. It would continue to fail millions of children. And in contrast, a foundational skills approach combined with attention of vocabulary and comp comprehensive, it was not just about phonics. Yep. That this approach would create a better foundation from which most of those millions of kids would be able to make further sustain progress. You know, as I mentioned before, it was not a guarantee, there are no guarantees, but it almost certainly increased the chances substantially of reading success for kids who traditionally just have not been served well by our schools.

Speaker 1 (00:50:33):

Hmm.

Speaker 2 (00:50:34):

So there are other lessons I can bale on about, but I’d say those are the top two.

Speaker 1 (00:50:39):

You know, that really resonates me with me because I talk with a lot of districts and schools and educators across the country. And I hear a lot of times that this district is implementing science of reading and all teachers now need to be teaching science of reading, but they don’t provide any rationale. They don’t provide professional development. They don’t help their teachers understand what I making this shift to a different program or different assessment actually supports that element. And so the thing that’s closest to the learning outcomes or the students, right? The teacher who has the biggest impact on what they’re, you know, what the students actually achieve are being left out of the process.

Speaker 2 (00:51:27):

Abso absolutely. I mean a hundred thousand percent. And, and again, that’s another indication of how we’re going down the same road.

Speaker 1 (00:51:34):

Mm-hmm <affirmative> yeah. A

Speaker 2 (00:51:36):

Perfect,

Speaker 1 (00:51:37):

And, and I’m hoping like I’m hearing more talk about, um, looking at higher, higher ed and, and making some changes there and you know, like how we can provide more robust professional development. I hope that, and maybe this podcast will be a way to sort of highlight the importance of that, but I hope we’re not going down that same road for the sake of the kids.

Speaker 2 (00:52:01):

Absolutely. Couldn’t agree more.

Speaker 1 (00:52:05):

Yeah. So let’s make a, a, a transition here. We talked a little bit about biliteracy development. Um, we talked a little bit about the science of reading, uh, relates to biliteracy development. Um, but you also authored an article in the reading research quarterly, and we can link our listeners in the show notes to all of these resources we’re talking about. Um, this was a, I think this was the special sign of reading ion if I’m not mistaken.

Speaker 2 (00:52:32):

Yeah, that’s correct. They turned out at had two or three. They had so many articles that they ended up doing, I think two or three issues on science of reading.

Speaker 1 (00:52:40):

Interesting. Well, this one, you also titled reading wars, reading science and English learners. Right. So what, what was sort of the, the Genesis for that article and, and how can we bring in this I idea of the English learners then to the conversation.

Speaker 2 (00:52:56):

Great. Yeah. I’m glad you mentioned that. Um, you know, it, it’s interesting science of reading and English learners, uh, someone this morning sent me a link to an online by literacy symposium. That amplify is spa answering

Speaker 1 (00:53:11):

<laugh> uhoh <laugh>

Speaker 2 (00:53:14):

Oh, <laugh> no, uh, oh no, absolutely not. I mean, in fact, the tag phrase, the tag phrase is how this I’m gonna read this, make sure I, I don’t mess it up. How the science of reading can help you accelerate literacy development for your English language learners. I hope I got that right now. I’m I’m encouraged by this really? No, no, I there’s no irony here. Right? <laugh> I am unabashedly encouraged by this because right now, English language learner advocates, and some researchers expressing profound skepticism about the science of reading saying, for example, the science encourages one size fits all thinking. And that it’s of limited utility for kids learning to read in a language there, simultaneously learning to speak and understand. I think that’s nonsense. I mean, I think it’s a, it’s utter nonsense, but again, we have a problem with communication, with understanding, with clarity and with appropriate skepticism.

Speaker 2 (00:54:18):

And I mean, I, I think there are definitely some areas for convergence and, and, and this one is one of them because what we know, as I said before, about science of reading, what we know about learning to read is that regardless of what language you’re reading in, and again, I’m mainly talking about alphabet language, it’s just for clarity. Sure. Regardless of what language you’re learning to read in. And regardless of whether you are learning to read in a, you are simultaneously learning to understand those foundational skills matter. They are foundational, they’re called foundational for a reason. <laugh> the difference is that for kids learning to read in the language, they’re simultaneously learning to speak and understand you need to provide second language support mm-hmm <affirmative> so that they understand the words they’re being taught to read. And we have very good evidence from two fundamental, I should say, foundational studies, one by Sharon Vaughn and one by <inaudible> airy names that I I’m sure are familiar to you and should be familiar to your listeners who demonstrated very pers that if you take the foundational plus vocabulary and comprehension, and even throw in some writing, as you very appropriately mention, if you take those fundamental things, elements of instruction and add to them English language, support the kids, understand the words can use the words can write the words, can understand the words can define the, you know, however you define knowing the language that you’re being taught to read.

Speaker 2 (00:56:02):

If you include that, then you’ll get a significant bump in reading early reading development. And these are all kids who are at risk for early reading, different qualities. These were not kids label dyslexic or anything like that. Mm. They were at risk based on, you know, certain screening elements that can be, that can be used to identify kids who are, might have problem. It’s not a definitive diagnosis by any means. Mm-hmm <affirmative>, which is another area where we have a lot of misunderstanding, but they were at risk. So these are, you know, lowest achievers like the bottom core quartile or something. And if you do these foundational skills plus vocabulary and comprehension and plus writing, and you add an English language development component to give them meaning access to what they’re learning to read, then you get a, a very important, modest to strong effect on their reading achievement. So that’s all I would consider that part of the science of reading and anyone who excludes that from the science of reading really is just <affirmative> misinformed.

Speaker 1 (00:57:05):

Hmm. So just like, there is some wars in science of reading, teaching English, it feels like there’s, I even hate to say this and get it out in the universe, but there are some disagreements or wars happening in BI literacy too. Ugh. It feels off

Speaker 2 (00:57:24):

Well, well, yeah, I mean it does. It does. I’m gonna tell you some good news in just a minute, but lemme just clarify that. I mean, <laugh> what, what happens is that there, there, if you, you know, if we want to keep using the warm metaphor, which, which I hate, but there are different fronts that have opened or facets or dimensions or of the debate, you know, there’s the traditional one. I mean, years ago when Jean Shaw was writing, learning to read the great debate, you know, when I was in kindergarten <laugh>

Speaker 1 (00:57:57):

I wasn’t born yet. <laugh>

Speaker 2 (00:57:58):

You weren’t born.

Speaker 1 (00:58:00):

Right.

Speaker 2 (00:58:00):

And you were on a horizon. Um, it was whole word versus phonics. Mm-hmm <affirmative> whole word versus phonics in subsequent years, the whole word transformed the whole language, which is more than just whole word in all fairness. Right? I mean, people still think about whole word versus phonics. Whole word is in the past. It’s now it then became whole language, right. Whole language versus phonics. And then when whole language got a suspect name that get then transformed into balanced literacy mm-hmm <affirmative> or three queuing mm-hmm <affirmative> or literature based reading, right. Those were the, that was the nomenclature. Again, there was a lot of old wine and new bottles going on. Sure. But it was always that other thing that is not phonics versus phonics. So that’s been a traditional line of demarcation, shall we say now, since then other players and interest and advocates.

Speaker 2 (00:58:58):

Right. I, I don’t mean to disparage them by any means. There’s the parents of dyslexic kids. They, they have become very active because it it’s now become clear that there are tools for identifying kids with potential reading difficulties mm-hmm <affirmative> and Joe Taren wrote another really important article, like early, like 1998. You know, we’re talking about a quarter century ago, something like catch ’em before they fail, or don’t wait until they fail mm-hmm <affirmative>. And the special ed system in our country is really broken because you gotta fail before you’re eligible for additional help. Whereas in reality, those early signs of put potential problems exist earlier when kids, you know, come into kindergarten. Now we’ve also gone to at extreme and there’s legislation that says screen using nonsense words, which itself is nonsense. So we keep bouncing back and forth between just ridiculous extremes, but let’s just leave it at this that we have means of identifying kids with potential reading difficulties and, and really you can prevent dyslexia to, to a large extent and parents of dyslexia, kids whose kids have not had their needs met.

Speaker 2 (01:00:12):

And they realized that early on, maybe not as early as kindergarten because they weren’t screened say, you know, we gotta do something about this week. I could catch ’em before they fail, because the price of is just too high. So they’ve come down four square on the science of, on the side of science of reading. Sometimes not with as precise, an understanding is we might like, but they become an advocacy in an interest group. Mm-hmm <affirmative>. And the third group that I know about are the ones that you brought up mm-hmm, <affirmative> the people. And I include myself in the category of people who worry about English learners. I mean, that’s why I got this whole thing, however long ago, 40, 50 years ago, not 50 that’s too long. That’s I’m not that old <laugh>,

Speaker 2 (01:00:51):

But, but you have to be worried about English learners have, you know, we have different labels for them, you know, but again, the issues and the challenges that they face and their teachers face have, have largely remained the same. And what’s worse is that the debate over bilingual education sort of for up until the early two thousands, basically obscured any other research, advocacy issues, identifying the needs of English language learners. Now, just to be clear, I’m a big fan of bilingual education. I’d be glad to come and talk about it sometime if you’d like, but I don’t wanna get off track, but that just suffice to say that the bilingual education debate, dominated discussion discourse and research around English language learners. Very recently, we have realized that there’s more to their school. Success us than bilingual education. Bilingual education can make a contribution, but there are much more challenges, many more challenges.

Speaker 2 (01:01:51):

In addition to that. So now the English language learner community being concerned about a repeat of reading first and how reading first, according to their narrative was an object failure. Say, uh, we’re not gonna stand by eye and let this happen again. And you got all this reading science with people, very excited, but it’s one size fits all. It doesn’t make. It has no, our kids have no place in it. Plus the fact that they’re on ordering to read in their own language, what are you gonna do about that? Reading science has nothing to say about that. Untrue and reading science has nothing to say about bilingual education that we’re interested in well, too bad, but it does have something to say about bilingual education. If you just listen and pay attention. So there’s lots of science of reading can say to all of these groups, some PED it more than others. Some are more skeptical than others, but I’ll tell you what, here’s the good news, Susan. I know you’ve been very patient waiting for this good news. <laugh> in, in the midst of my Harang <laugh>

Speaker 2 (01:02:48):

The good news is that there’s a lot of commonality. There’s a lot of common ground where people don’t realize it. I have not met a single advocate for any of these sides that I sketched out that wants kids to fail. That wants kids to get screwed. That doesn’t want the very best for all kids their own, for sure. But everyone’s kid, they’re all very kid oriented. They just have very, very definition, different definitions and ways of approaching that without realizing that underneath there’s a tremendous amount of agreement that we can build on as our foundation for putting in place, what needs to get put in place while we push ahead on things about which there are some legitimate disagreements issues that need to be resolved in practice and research. I am optimistic that there is a way forward here.

Speaker 1 (01:03:37):

Hmm. You know, it, it, it feels like, oh, there’s so much more to explore here. We may have to have you on for another session, but <laugh>

Speaker 2 (01:03:46):

Twist my arm.

Speaker 1 (01:03:47):

Okay. I will. I promise. Um, it, it feels like first of all, we, we should bring this sort of wrap this thing up because there’s lots of nuggets in here and, and listeners, you’re gonna be listening to this one more than once. I guarantee it with that hope and optimism that there is a way forward. And thank you for ending on that, because that makes me feel a lot better. <laugh> is there, is there any in, in all of the sea of stuff, whether it’s science, of reading bilingual education and all the sea of stuff, are there any like real nuggets or final thoughts or pieces of advice that you will on leave, right. Listeners with?

Speaker 2 (01:04:23):

Yeah. I, I would wanna leave, leave them with that, that, that there, that there is a way forward here, but it’s gonna require clear communication, accepting skepticism when skepticism is warranted and listening, it’s gonna take a lot of listening. Assuming the person you’re discussing or arguing with wants the same things for their kids that you want for years, and that what we want for our kids, we have more in common than we have dividing us. There are some divisions, there are some things that need to be prioritized. I’m not, I’m not saying let’s sing kumbaya and our, I mean, that would be totally naive. It’d be the opposite of skepticism. It’d be sort of idealistic fantasy. It doesn’t exist. But if we listen, if we communicate clearly, if we pay attention, giving people the benefit of the doubt that what they want is for all kids, then I think we can, we can move forward.

Speaker 2 (01:05:25):

And I mean, I actually have a, a, a really good example. I think what’s going on in Illinois, I’ve been involved in some of the conversations in passing some of their legislation, um, which they’ve sort of put on pause for a while to more people in to discuss the various issues. They, they they’ve taken seriously the lessons of, of reading first and have made from what I can tell a commitment, not to go down that road again, because our, our kids are too important. Learning to read is too important. You can’t have another bulldozing attempt to force people, you know, know to, to tow the line, you know, and step in line and command and control. And this is what you will do. We just can’t afford to do that. And, and I see the, the beginning glimmerings of that sort of approach in Illinois and my most fervent wish would be a, for that to be successful obviously, and B for it to spread around in the country. Yeah. That’s what I would waste for.

Speaker 1 (01:06:21):

I love that. It’s a great place to close and, and I’m just going to do that. Rallying cry in just my own way that I communicate it’s really about the kids. And let’s put our, let’s put our adult stuff aside and come together for, for the sake of the kids in our country. Um, and, and just support them with what they need Claude. It’s been fun. Wow. Thanks,

Speaker 2 (01:06:45):

Susan. It is my pleasure. Thank you so much. You’re, you’re a terrific interviewer.

Speaker 1 (01:06:49):

Oh, well, thanks so much for joining us and thanks for the work that you’ve done and the work that you continue to do. We really do appreciate that.

Speaker 2 (01:06:55):

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Speaker 1 (01:06:59):

Thanks for listening and keep your feedback coming. Want to learn more, be sure to stay connected by subscribing to your favorite podcast app and join our Facebook discussion group science of reading the community.