The Reading League Wisconsin and Personal Attacks.
What Jessica Winter Got Wrong: Curriculum, Intensive Phonics, and Vocabulary Building Instruction
I’m, analyzing all the things that Jessica Winter got wrong in her article, ‘The Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based Literacy’ because that’s what I do. I’m using my teeny-tiny little podcast to point out the errors and misinformation of her article written for The New Yorker with a circulation of over 1 million readers. I am assuming her errors weren’t intentional. We are left to conclude that that her errors are based on a lack of knowledge, what is sometimes known as ignorance.
Jessica Winter's Clown-Based Understanding of Early literacy
Jessica Winter is an editor at The New Yorker, where she also writes about family and education. She wrote an article for the New Yorker entitled, ‘The Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based Literacy’. I’m spending time analyzing this article in a series of podcasts because it mis-describes reading instruction in a way that’s really hard to imagine. In so doing, it perfectly represents the mis-descriptions and un-understandings of the SoR movement. Normally I wouldn’t waste a lot of time on a clown like Jessica Winter. As stated earlier, a clown in literacy terms is one who thinks they know a great deal about literacy when in fact, they know relatively little. They know so little, that they don’t even know how little they know. What makes a clown a clown is that they go around making decisions, promoting policies, and advocating change based largely on personal anecdotes, I-think-isms, and selected bits of research. Now, if one limits one’s clownism to the privacy of their own home, clownery would not be a problem. But when clowns with large platforms, like Jessica Winter and Emily Hanford, use their large platforms to spread clownery like an infectious disease, we must waste our time and energy creating an intellectual prophylactic. This is time that could have been spent helping children to achieve their full literacy potential.
Jessica Winter, Lucy Calkins, and the Way to Get Good Reading Instruction
Jessica Winter is an editor at The New Yorker, where she also writes about family and education. She wrote an article for the New Yorker entitled, ‘The Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based Literacy’. In this series of podcasts, I’m analyzing this article because it describes or mis-describes reading instruction. As I started reading, I soon realized that Jessica Winter had no idea of what she was talking about. Her misrepresentation and un-understanding could have a negative impact if readers actually take her seriously. Since the New Yorker has a circulation of over a million readers, I felt I should say something. Will my humble little podcast actually make a difference? Will it change anybody’s mind? Jessica Winter’s article represents everything that’s wrong and harmful about the current Science of Reading movement. That’s why I’m analyzing it. It’s based on a knowledge base related to reading instruction that’s shallow and disjointed at best. It relies on anecdotes, personal experiences, and emotions to create a picture that’s not at all accurate. And like the science of reading movement, this article uses a very un-scientific process to try to understand reading instruction. And when you use un-scientific methodology to come to know things you must expect to get cartoonish portrayals and misinformation. It is a bit ironic that a movement with “science” in the title (science of reading), is in actuality so very unscientific in its methods used to understand reading reality.