Evaluating Sources, the Read Act of Minnesota, and Emily Hanford

So, I was having an online conversation with some of my graduate students last week, and one of them asked, “Dr. Johnson, how do you evaluate sources?”

How do you evaluate sources? 

            Great question.    

And in the silence that followed, the question echoes.

            “How do you evaluate sources …. How do you evaluate sources … how do you evaluate sources …”

With so much blabber in the media and such, and everybody throwing around academic-sounding terms like candy at a 4th of July parade, it’s no wonder that there’s a bit of confusion here. 

Evaluating Sources of Information.

We need good information to help us determine what is and isn’t real.   And in order to make good educational decisions, we must be able to evaluate our sources of information.  Our sources should be true.  We cannot build truth based on untruths and semi-truths.  Two half-truths do not make a whole truth.  You cannot build a house on a foundation of sand.  You cannot make good decisions about reading instruction based on inaccurate or incomplete information.  Hence, we must be able to evaluate our sources to ensure we’re getting good information.

Information Beyond True or False -- Understanding

But let’s start with something upon which we can all agree:  We all want the best possible literacy instruction for the students in our schools.  We all want students to achieve their full literacy potential.  I think we all agree on that.  Thus, we must make good decisions related to the types of literacy instruction these students receive.

But to make good decisions, we need information that’s beyond true.   We need information that is accurate.  And it is not only accurate but it is understood within the context in which it is found.

For example, it is true that if you teach phonics, students are very likely to score higher on measures of phonics.  This is true.  Absolutely.  If you teach phonics, students will score higher on phonics measures than those who have not been taught phonics.  That is accurate.  But without context, that information is inaccurately understood and can be extended or applied inaccurately.  We need a bit of context to accurately understand information.  If you teach phonics, students are very likely to score higher on measures of phonics.  Yes, but ...

• This does not mean all students need heavy doses of phonics. 

• This does not mean that students will be better readers if they get more phonics.

• This does not mean that more phonics is better than less phonics.

• This does not mean that phonics is the key variable in learning to read.

• This does not mean that things other than phonics instruction should be excluded.

• This does not mean that phonics instruction should be taught at all ages and levels. 

• This does not mean that these phonics skills will transfer to authentic reading situations. 

• This does not mean that heavy doses of phonics are better than light doses of phonics. 

• This does not mean that one approach to teaching phonics (say analytic phonics) is better than another, like synthetic phonics, large unit phonics, embedded phonics, onset-rime for phonics, or phonics by spelling.

• This does not mean that a skills-based approach emphasizing phonics is more effective than meaning-based approaches that emphasize meaning. 

It merely states that if you teach something, students are going to score higher on measures of the something that was taught.  And when you teach one group something and another group nothing, the something group is going to score higher on measures of something than the nothing group.  Absolutely.  But it does not mean that the something group is going to score higher on measures of something else (like comprehending or creating meaning) when compared to the nothing group.

However, this is the type of decontextualized facts upon which the Read Act in Minnesota was based.  This is the type of decontextualized information promoted by SoR zealots.  And when challenged by context or with information that leaves the decontextualized fact to be untrue, we are told to read Stanislas Dehaene (duh-heene).

“Go read Stanislas Dehaene.  Have you read Dehaene?  You must read Dehaene.  Here’s a video of Dehaene.  This is what Dehaene said.  Dehaene, Dehaene, Dehaene ….”

(For the record, I've read Dehaene. There are methodology concerns regarding how he collects his facts, but even more concerning are those who would extend or apply his findings to authentic teaching contexts. This is not how basic research works.)

Decontextualized Facts

A fact may be true.  But the truth of the fact is limited to the context in which it was found.  Outside a meaningful context, the fact may mean something different.  Also, facts without context can be misapplied and misunderstood.  This is true of many of the facts used to support SoR structured approaches to reading instruction known as structured literacy.  It is a house built on a series of decontextualized facts.

Research, Theories, and Dot-to-Dot Pictures

A theory in scientific terms is not an untested hypothesis.  In science, a theory is a way to explain a set of facts and to understand phenomena.  Theories are made up of facts that have been created by research.

A variety of types of research creates facts.  Research-created fact-dots are used for the dot-to-dot picture which is a theory.  You cannot pull one or two dots out of the theoretical dot-to-dot picture and claim to have a whole picture.  You cannot connect dots to non-dots or half-dots and get a clear or accurate picture of anything.  And, you cannot start with your own picture and select only those dots that align with your picture.

Also, you cannot use anecdotal evidence and personal experience to create dots.   These aren’t real dots.  They are faded, little half-dots.  And while these faded half-dots may be true for you, they are not generalizable to a larger population.

Yet this is what the Minnesota State Legislature has done with the Read Act.  They chose to listen to non-experts with just a few dots in their pocket who consider themselves to be dot-experts.  They have dots, but they do not have the dot-to-dot picture of reality to understand their dots.  They may know something about their dots, but they know nothing about the picture.   

Emily Hanford is a journalist.  She may be a wonderful person.  She may be reporting facts.  But they are facts that are not understood in the context of the whole.  They are facts without context or understanding.  They are dots outside a meaningful dot-to-do picture.  Thus, the reality she has described is a dot-to-dot picture that she has created out of her own imagination.  She connected a bunch of fact dots, half-dots, and non-dots to create the distorted dot-to-dot picture that she wanted to create.

Importance of Expertise

Having expertise in literacy is important for understanding reading instruction.  You have the whole picture.  You know what questions to ask, what data to collect, what to use to measure the data, how to collect the data, and how to interpret the data.  With this expertise, you are able to connect the data-dots to create a robust theoretical picture.  Without this expertise, you are like Emily Hanford connecting a few dots to create a weak theoretical picture.

I would invite Ms. Hanford to be a journalist.  That is where her expertise lies.  She is perfectly qualified to report on educational matters.  However, my understanding of journalism is that you should be describing the picture. You should not be creating your own picture. 

Emily Hanford and American Public Media have created a picture that benefits them.  My Alexia App says Emily Hanford’s net worth is $14 million.  Now I know Alexia is not a reliable source.  There’s no way to vet this information you see.  But even if she’s worth only $1 million, that is still much more than most teachers, teacher educators, scholars, and researchers are worth.  But it’s just an Alexia app.  That's not a credible source.

Emily Hanford is the Alexia App of reading instruction.  Emily Hanford is able to say whatever she wants to say.  In academia, where real research is published, where real facts are established and put into a theoretical context, we have a process called blind peer review.  Here a jury of experts in the field review research and theoretical articles without knowing who the author of the article is (Hence the name – blind peer review). It's not a perfect process, but it is a process.

But the work of Ms. Hanford has never been about accuracy and understanding.  It’s been about making good radio and hefty speaking fees.