Class In Session- Complex Literacy, with Nancy Carlsson-Paige

This is Busted Pencils, fully-ledded education talk.

Here are your hosts, Dr. Tim Slecker and Dr. Johnny Luponacci,

educated educators talking education.

Yeah, that's what we do.

It's Busted Pencils fully-ledded.

Education talk, educated educators talking,

education classes in session.

And anybody watching the YouTube kind of saw Jess and Tim,

kind of put their hands up when they announced Johnny Luponacci

and well, Jess, we have to announce it's another day now, too,

that he's, you know, his science denialism isn't working out so well.

No, it's not. He has the flow.

He has the real deal.

The real deal flow.

He thought that if he said he didn't have it,

that he would end up not really having it.

Yeah, it turns out that, you know,

science does actually have some answers for us occasionally.

Yeah, taking a flu test and finding out it's positive

and then trying to deny that positive test didn't work out so well.

So, Johnny Luponacci, we hope you get well.

Our friend, we will miss you just how you doing.

You know, I'm doing all right.

The past couple of weeks have been incredibly chaotic

and very stressful covering all of the national news.

However, to be here now with you and our fantastic guest,

this is all wonderful.

Yeah, talk about fantastic guests.

We are so happy to have her back.

We're not going to reveal her whereabouts

because it's super special to get her.

Yeah, Dr. Nancy Carlson page.

My name is mom, you know, her.

She's here visiting talking a little bit about, you know,

about the science of reading and a piece in the Boston Globe.

But Nancy, we first got to ask.

What do you make of what's happening here in the States

as you get to observe from a safe space and kind of think about this?

What's what do you make of the world we're existing in right now?

Well, first of all, hi, I'm really happy to see you.

It's so nice to talk to people who are reasonable thinkers

and talkers in such a dark time.

So hi, and hi, Johnny.

I hope maybe you're watching, listening, but we miss you.

Yeah, we do.

I, as far as I can tell, there is an attempted coup going on

in the United States.

And it's interesting when we look at history

because there have been coups many times through history.

The United States has been a part of quite a few of them.

And they've usually involved military violence.

But we're seeing here an attempted coup, I think,

just using money and data, basically,

to control what happens.

And it's happening very fast.

And in the first couple, you know, just these first few weeks

of the new administration, I think it's taken many people

by surprise.

And it's been very difficult for them to get a grip on organizing

and responding quickly.

So with hindsight, everyone should have known it

because they said they were doing it and they're doing it.

Yeah, I mean, that's the part, right?

This is that this, this isn't like, whoa, where did this come from?

Right.

And it was laid out.

But you know, Nancy, you talked about it to a coup.

Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway podcast pivot.

They've been talking about this.

And they really, you know, last week went into pointing out

what you just said and saying, this is a legitimate coup

and pointed out very much the business, the data,

the undermining of all of the structures that were in place,

potentially even now saying that, well, it doesn't matter

what the law says.

We've been elected by a majority.

We're going to go forward.

And they, I just saw on social media, they got blasted

as how dare they declare this president who was elected

by so many people that he would ever engage in a coup.

And, you know, and this is the crazy world.

And I think people, the way you pointed that out too,

we imagine that word coup was some form of like physical

military violence.

Yeah.

And what we're seeing here, yeah, is that maybe what makes it

potentially hard for people to say it's a coup?

I think that there are a lot of reasons why people

wouldn't want to accept something that sounds that extreme.

And they've, they've been very good at this for decades,

which is very quietly, quietly building the structures

to support what's happening right now and making it happen so fast.

Because this has been books I've mentioned to before,

like how democracies die, democracy and chains.

These books help us understand what's been going on for decades,

but kind of behind the scenes.

Right.

And with dark money and with the citizens united,

you know, all the pieces are kind of in place.

I don't know how many Americans see these issues

or see how they're interconnected and how they've paved the way

for what's happening right now and how serious it is.

And we're in a situation now where the resistance from that

that should be in place just by our Constitution

are not really operating.

Right.

Because we have, you know, a Congress that's unfortunately

for a long time been dysfunctional.

And then, you know, the judicial branch because of Trump's

earlier appointments and all the unfair things that happened

to Obama, et cetera, we have a Supreme Court that's favorable

towards what he does.

So it's not the only hope I have at the moment is that

the federal judges will stop some of these unconstitutional

and lawless actions by Trump.

But I don't know if that what I'm worried about is even if they try.

I think what we have to see is if I don't like to say his name.

I so dislike the man, but I don't know what you call him.

Anyway, him.

We call him TFG.

Okay.

And what that is.

Well, we'll talk to you when the show's over and let you know

what that means.

That's why I can guy.

That blank and guy.

Okay, so TFG is what we're going with.

And what we have to see is will he over, will he go against the judges?

If he just ignores what they say, then we're, we're,

we're in trouble.

Yeah.

Well, and I think that's the fear that got stuck really, you know,

big time this weekend.

I don't know if you saw the news put Vice President Vance put out a tweet

on X or whatever you want to call it.

Now that kind of pushed the, you know, that premise that, you know,

how dare this judge get himself involved in an executive decision.

And, you know, kind of setting the stage for the potential of saying,

you know, will they abide by these judges' rulings?

We can only hope that some type of common sense kinds of comes,

comes across what we could talk about this for so long, Nancy.

But, you know, let's, let's shift gears and move along.

You and colleague, Julie Hackett had a beautiful piece published

in the Boston Globe last week.

The fallacy of settled science in literacy and busted pencils listeners

all already know that when we're talking to Dr. Nancy Carlson page,

and we have something to talk about the science of reading,

she's going to give us a sense of the reality,

the history and where this comes from.

But Nancy, the piece, I mean, what, just to remind,

what prompted you and Julie to put this piece together

and have it published in the Boston Globe?

Right, we've, we've been meeting with other literacy educators

since last summer, concerned about the science of reading

and we can go into why and all that that is.

But then, not that long ago, maybe a month or so,

some parents in Massachusetts initiated a class action suit against

the authors of two curricula, quite well known,

Irene Fountis, Gesu Penel,

and then, I can't remember the other one right now.

Lucy, Lucy Carlson.

Sorry.

And so, and against the publisher, Heinemann publishers.

So, a question, I mean, a question we should ask ourselves

is, are, are people, by the way, I know these,

some of these people, they are such well-meaning, dedicated,

caring, theoreticians and researchers who developed curriculum

out of theory and out of science, to the best of their ability.

Okay.

So, if you've got some classrooms where some kids who,

many of them have some learning issues,

aren't learning to read, do we blame the curriculum developer

of the curriculum that teachers are using?

That's a pretty deep question.

And, in other words, are they responsible?

When we look at the number of factors that influence children's success

in school, as we were discussing before, primarily zip code,

primarily the family income issues are affecting school achievement

more than anything else.

And I think legislators don't want to look at it.

Look at that.

And so, they find a simple solution like the science of reading,

which isn't scientific, we'll discuss that more,

in order to alleviate themselves, make, have an easy answer

to a complex problem and not deal with the underlying issues

that are causing school achievement inequality.

Right.

I mean, and, yeah, pointing that out, too,

is to really say, you know, if we're talking about research,

research has been pretty conclusive about academic achievement

and standardized test scores that probably, not probably,

the biggest predictor of if you want to know those test scores.

In fact, we have a, you know, we've had Chris Tanken on a few times

who says, just show me a couple of socioeconomic factors.

And I will, and I will predict test scores.

And he's done it time and time and time again.

Yeah, but, as you said, but for some reason,

that is a problem that politicians don't want to address.

They would rather see it through curriculum.

And so, yeah, now we have the science of reading.

And this lawsuit by the parents is essentially saying

everyone should have known that we shouldn't have been using

balance literacy, Lucy Calkins in her curriculum.

We should have been using science of reading.

And because they use the wrong theoreticians,

the wrong curriculum, our kids now can't read.

And so we're suing.

Is that, is that kind of make the sense of what, you know,

quick summary?

Yeah, that's correct.

And they're hoping for success in Massachusetts.

This is the first date they've done it.

And then they'll have copycat suits.

It's a class action suit.

Okay.

So they want other families and other states to join in.

So it's very scary and threatening to these poor academic

people who dedicated their lives to kids, you know,

success in reading and writing that they're bearing the burden

of this, this threat.

And, and I mean, let's go right to it, though, too.

They're calling it the issue of this word to science, right?

We're really saying research, you know,

what this research show us.

The, they even the science of reading co-ops that term.

When the argument, though, too, that says they should have

used the science of reading.

And somebody says, well, you know, research shows Nancy,

how do you point out the complexity of research,

especially for literacy acquisition?

You know, there's a very good book called Fact Finding the

Science of Reading.

I recommend it by Pearson and Tierney that will explain in

great detail all of the assumptions and claims by science of

reading and sort of deconstruct them and use a lot of research.

So we can't go into it in depth here.

Right.

But I can say to you, it's, there is no settled science.

So saying, in other words, some, what research shows us is

that some programs have lesser and greater success depending

on the other variables in the situation, such as the children,

the income level of their parents, the teacher,

the, the instructional methods used by the teacher,

many other factors in the classroom that affect the success

of a reading program.

So the claim that, that it's settled is just, it's just false.

There isn't any science that shows us that one program is

better than another in literacy.

Yeah.

I mean, and so for any, you know, for our listener out there

thinking about that, I mean, yeah, apply it somewhere in a way

that you can think about, you know, your past or your kids

or your grandkids.

And I always do that too.

I, you know, my daughter.

Guess what?

She didn't really need any instruction in phonics, hardcore

instruction, she learned to read by us,

spending a lot of time with her, lots of books in our house.

And those are issues that would actually predict,

better, you know, quote, reading.

And yeah, I've told this story before, is that, you know,

and she though was our, her first grade teacher was very

alarmed at one point with Lacey because her dibbles score

was really, you know, kind of slow and literally slow

because her fluency of nonsense words was not fast enough.

And that's right.

You know, and not that the teacher was coming from a bad place

because the teacher was really concerned because that was the

kind of bar.

The teacher was being held against was woodlaces, you know,

the fluency of nonsense words scores be held against her.

You know, but we went in and just said, you know,

Mrs. first grade teacher, she's already reading.

Yeah.

And that's not a brilliance of my daughter,

but that points out what you said, Nancy, in first grade,

Lacey's class of 23 kids, she was a reader.

There were kids who were just starting to come together

and recognize letters and that across that.

So you've got first graders reading in some first graders

who need instruction on letter recognition.

Well, that that's the key point that we're trying to make is

that one size does not fit all it's like my older son,

Kyle, he read my op bed and he goes, yeah,

one size doesn't fit all doesn't even work with ponchos.

What do you, what are they trying to do here?

And it seems to me a parent or teacher who's at all observant

can see that there's quite a variation

in how children learn to read.

In fact, it's a beautiful mystery because no one knows how exactly

it happens, but some children do need some direct instruction

in phonics, but some don't.

My younger son, Matt, sailed into reading, never had phonics,

just absolutely got, you know, predictable books and could read

that just went over and over the baronstein bear book

about a hundred times until he could read.

So it depends, the teacher has to have a big toolbox,

lots of different things to draw upon,

and a lot of ability to observe children,

understand them developmentally and know when to apply certain methods

and when to let them go in relation to any specific kids.

That's an art and now the teachers are considered dumb and blamed

and have to follow a predetermined script.

It's, it's going downhill.

Man, we are going so quickly through the interview here,

but you just said something though really powerful to that,

that big toolbox and the reality and understanding,

okay, outside of this suit, but across the country in states

and state like mine, Ohio, the,

the legislative legal mandate of teachers and teacher education

programs that is saying you can't even give future teachers

a toolbox of any size with lots of things.

You can only provide them this minuscule little toolbox

of the science of reading,

and you just maybe think of that, Nancy,

gone like we're literally legislating that teachers

have less tools when they go into it.

It's important to understand that the science of reading

isn't about science.

It's a movement to affect curriculum,

instruction, and teacher education.

And it's aligned with a lot of conservative education forces.

It gets money from them.

Some of them are funding the court case.

They're, it's aligned with the culture wars because it'll,

it's highly scripted, controlled in sequence.

So teachers don't have any room to bring in story books,

story books have been banned from a lot of classrooms.

So books that reflect kids' differences aren't allowed.

So moms for liberty loves science of reading.

So we have to understand this is a political movement.

This isn't an education movement.

It's only that on the surface.

Underneath it's it's actually, you know,

one of the biggest curricula used is ED Hershey's seat.

Corn knowledge.

Corn knowledge language arts.

It's been adopted and mandated in more than half the states

that use science of reading.

And you know what that, and that's coming from

the ED Hershey who wrote the cultural literacy,

whatever that book was in the 80s.

I think that's a cultural literacy.

Yeah.

That the standards movement even grew from.

So we're talking about a lot of conservative forces

because the science of reading is top down.

It's whole class.

It's sequenced and controlled.

And there's no room for the teacher to talk about any other topics

that people don't want kids to hear about.

Well, I wonder then if if Matt's baronstein bears was

be showing up on the moms of liberty ban books list right now.

It could be.

I just, you know, I mean, but, but even that is,

is to say, you know, the enjoyment, the reading,

and Nancy, I'm so glad you pointed this out because,

you know, we can get really hung up on getting into the emotional.

I really need my child to read because that's a big deal.

And we know literacy is an incredibly important thing for everybody

to achieve.

And so we get wrapped up in the.

So what's curriculum helps my kid read better?

And it's like, well, when do you have a moment to peel down

and really understand that?

Yeah, you mean, you know, cultural literacy was in the late 80s.

This pushed to really say, which sounds like we're just really concerned

about kids reading.

The reality is, is that we're not concerned about their literacy level

so much as we're concerned about what they read.

And the control of curriculum, not the control of the ability

to learn to read, the control of the ability of what they're going to read

and how those things really affect, as you said, the culture wars.

Yeah, you know, Hirsch really believes that this is kind of,

this is incredible to me and very problematic,

but he apparently believes that the achievement gap

and the issues of inequality and education will be solved

if everybody had the same facts, the same core curriculum.

And that really, the inequities are caused by progressive teachers

who let all these other things leak into the curriculum.

But I must say there are parallels between what's happening in signs of reading

and what's happening in the nation that we first talked about.

These things are, are, are, are running parallel because the signs of reading

is based on a lot of mythology. It's not factual.

Well, that's another reason we wrote the op-ed.

It got, we got so tired of the lies and the misinformation

and the false information.

We felt we had to say something about it,

but we've already been challenged about that,

but I can't go into it right now.

But the, but I'm stunned because there's so much false information everywhere now.

I actually feel, I mean, people don't know whom to believe

or what to believe because there's, there's so many lies out there

and they're accepted as truth.

I mean, D, D F G is always lying and, and people accept it.

So, you know, we're, we actually were trying to come out with some facts.

Yeah.

You know, and it's unheard of. That's why we're getting attacked

because we're actually telling the truth.

How dare you use facts?

How radical the radicals, my goodness.

Taken on science with facts.

Who would have ever thought it would be there?

Oh, Dr. Nancy Carlson Page,

we really appreciate you busting pencils with us on this classes in session.

Anything else so that, you know,

the listener needs to be aware of that you,

that you would want to make sure that we covered for today.

Well, let's see, I just, I did want to make sure that

people try to dig in a little bit to see the alignment

of the signs of reading movement with a whole belief system

that's conservative in education.

An anti, it's an anti teacher movement.

It's an anti progressive education movement.

It aligns with a lot of conservative forces in education

and is, is very anti public education.

Yeah, and, you know,

and it's very anti science.

Yeah, that's out of the, that's the first thing.

There is no science behind this.

And I would love to have more time to explain that sometime,

but I can just say the person who's the neuroscientist,

whose work they mostly dependent on for the podcasts,

all the story.

Really, when you read what he says is not promoting

a one size fits all phonic space curriculum at all.

And he's saying it's very difficult.

And everybody knows this to align a,

an instructional program with, with what little science

we have about the brain.

That connection isn't something we've been able to make yet.

Right.

So they, they made huge late leaps in the wrong direction.

But all these legislators in 40 states got so excited

about having a one size fits all simple solution

to reading problems for a crisis.

It's not even real.

It's manufactured that they all started mandating these curricula,

which has really demoralized teachers

and made them even increasingly want to leave the field

and fewer wanting to enter.

Because who wants to have people policing you

when you're teaching something you don't even want to teach?

Well, you know, one little thing too.

Just a comment.

Our friend Paul Thomas.

We love him.

He pointed, you know, so you plan to have 40 different,

40 states fully involved, you know,

kind of pushing the science of reading.

It's been going now, you know,

Paul claims 10 years in some states,

but maybe, you know, full force in five years.

And, but the nape scores were released last week.

And those darn nape scores show that kids lost ground.

Yeah.

And Paul was, you know, wondering out loud in his radical scholarship

blog, why science of reading isn't to blame

for the decline in reading scores?

Yeah, I'm with him 100%.

I felt the same way as soon as I saw those scores.

And, you know, if we were thinking clearly,

we would say, hmm, that must mean

that this mandated top down scripted approach to reading

isn't the solution.

And we start opening up the conversation again,

which again, we were trying to do in this op-ed.

But I think the forces, I hope I'm getting through

with that are so solid and coordinated

that it's going to take a lot,

just like on the national scene.

It's going to take a lot to undo it,

because it's a real easy way out.

Right.

Right.

Well, yeah.

And, say, Paul's number one point out, too,

is that, you know, the science of reading people

when confronted with the fact that the nape scores dropped

quickly pointed out that, you know,

out of school factors, such as COVID,

is probably more to actually contributing to those declines.

We got so much more.

We love having Dr. Nancy Carlson page on the show.

Dr. Nancy, thanks for busting pencils.

I love talking with you,

because it's just, it's nice to talk to someone

who can actually think about things

and have a conversation without an argument,

but just exploring the ideas I really appreciate it.

Thank you, Tim.

She must be talking about Jess, though,

because that...

And thanks, Jess, both of you.

Thank you.

And now, for your moment of Zinn.

If history is to be creative,

to anticipate a possible future without denying the past,

it should, I believe,

emphasize new possibilities

by disclosing those hidden episodes

of the past when,

even if in brief flashes,

people showed their ability to resist,

to join together,

and occasionally to win.

Thanks, everybody, for busting pencils with us

on this classes in session.

Make sure that you hang out on Friday.

Yeah.

First down,

facelops and free throws Saturday,

one full hour home room.

And everybody, keep busting pencils.

Thanks, everyone.

Thanks for watching.

See you next week.

Bye.

Bye.

Bye.

Bye.

Bye.