2022: On Fear and Anxiety

January 3, 2022 plthomasedd

Apparently if you are of a certain age—at 60, I am at the end of the Boomer generation—you were convinced by pop culture that one of the great (and even reasonable) fears of being a human was finding yourself trapped in quicksand.

Tarzan Johnny Weismuller GIF - Tarzan Johnny Weismuller Quick Sand - Discover & Share GIFs

How did I, a redneck living and growing up in the foothills of South Carolina during the 1960s and 1970s, come to fear the ubiquitous dangers of quicksand?

Throughout my childhood, I followed the passions of my mother, who kept black-and-white movies and TV shows on our TVs, including the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films and the Ron Ely Tarzan TV series.

Of course this was nonsense—despite my childhood forages in the woods seeking (and trying to avoid) the dreaded quicksand.

I also inherited from my mother a life-long love of science fiction and a toxic cocktail of anxiety, depression, and hypochondria (the latter three all fueled by the pop culture we were consuming).

Pop culture science fiction created in mid- to late twentieth century was often set in the world we inhabit today; notably, we recently passed the setting of Blade Runner, 2019, and are now days into the setting of Soylent Green:

*Soylent Green*, released in 1973 and set in 2022, is based on *Make Room! Make Room!*, a novel published in 1966 but set in 1999.

Of course, in 2019, many lamented that, once again, science had not delivered on the promises of science fiction, the flying car, and artificial intelligence remained far behind the “more human than human” refrain evoked in Ridley Scott’s adaptation of Philp K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

And as far as we know, we are not being fed each other in 2022 because overpopulation has finally threatened the existence of humanity (another fear perpetuated in my childhood).

Since we must resist reading science fiction as prediction—most science fiction is a cautionary tale about any present time and our enduring human weaknesses—I think we should note the brief text of the promotional poster: “It’s the year 2022…People are still the same. They’ll do anything to get what they need. And they need SOYLENT GREEN.”

Humanity hasn’t experienced the sort of scarcity dramatized in the film, but we are in the midst of two years of scarcity and death because of a pandemic. And we are witnessing a truism that is chilling, “People are still the same. They’ll do anything to get what they need.”

And we have learned that “need” can be an ugly, distorting concept.

While the irrational and pervasive fear and anxiety some of us live with as a part of our humanity are often difficult to discern from the fear and anxiety fostered by media, pop culture, and political manipulation, it seems that we as humans need to manage better our irrational fears (quicksand) and fantastical hopes (flying cars) so that we can focus on the real daily threats before us, “People are still the same. They’ll do anything to get what they need.”

No, our food source is not be the Big Reveal of the film:

And it isn’t quicksand lurking around the next corner that may kill us; but the thing to fear is people, each other.

We are a selfish species, and our own worst enemies.

It’s the year 2022.

People are still the same.

That is what is frightening.

Education, education reform, literacy, reading, Science of Reading

RECOMMENDED: The Language of Literacy Education (Brill, 2021)

January 2, 2022 plthomasedd

Public and media debate as well as public policy driven by those debates is too often driven by misuse and misunderstanding of key terms and concepts, especially for the field of education.

Two such terms—Critical Race Theory and the “science of reading” (SoR)—have demonstrated that phenomenon over the past few years.

SoR debates have resulted in many states adopting harmful reading policy (often including practices not supported by research, such as grade retention and citing discredited sources such as the National Reading Panel and NCTQ).

With reading and literacy a high-priority focus of the media and state-level legislation, understanding and using terms and concepts around reading and literacy correctly and clearly are urgently needed. Therefore, I strongly recommend a new volume, Language of Literacy Education, edited by Vicki S. Collet, Associate Director, NWA Writing Project, and Associate Professor, CIED, University of Arkansas.

*Language of Literacy Education* (Brill, 2021)

The volume offers research-based explanations for literacy terms [1], such as SoR, the simple view of reading, etc., that often contrast with the way these terms are used in public and media discourse as well as in state-level legislation debates and policy.

For example, the volume’s definition for SoR is how the term should be used and understood:

Science of reading, broadly defined, is research results from a variety of fields and methodologies, including basic and applied science, related to reading and reading instruction. The science of reading is supported by ongoing research with a “dynamic interplay among methods, theories, and findings” (Pearson, 2020). Examining this full range of science “can be a helpful policy guide to initiatives that seek to improve students’ reading ability and appetite” (Collet et al., 2021)….
Because of the complexity of reading and the differences among learners and contexts, no single instructional approach has been found to be effective in teaching all students to read (Compton-Lily et al, 2020; International Dyslexia Association, 2018; Malloy et al., 2019).
Collet, V.S. (2021). Science of reading. In V.S. Collet (Ed.), The language of literacy education (p. 66). Brill Publishers.

While I strongly endorse the full definition provided here for a nuanced and robust understanding of SoR and how people learn to read over their entire lifetime, I find the inclusion of the current problems with the misuse of SoR as compelling:

Some instantiations of the “science of reading” are narrowly construed to emphasize basic research from cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and linguistics that describe how the brain learns to read in the early years. Public discourse sometimes focuses on the alphabet principle (Liberman et al., 1989) and a simple view of reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). This overly-restrictive view “is being used to shape public policy and silence other perspectives” (Hoffman et al., 2020, p. S258) and to narrow curricula (Compton-Lily et al., 2020; Vaughn et al., 2020) and should not be confused with the body of scientific studies of reading, which includes an interdisciplinary store of knowledge about “reading-related skills, processes, antecedents, and outcomes” (Alexander, 2020, p. S90). A “cautionary disposition to avoid drawing unwarranted inferences about the efficacy of pedagogical alternatives that have not themselves been rigorously examined” (Cervetti et al., 2020, p. S168) is needed. In contrast, research on reading instruction and the preparation of literacy teachers is robust, extensive, and useful for guiding reform efforts (Hoffman et. al, 2020).
Collet, V.S. (2021). Science of reading. In V.S. Collet (Ed.), The language of literacy education (p. 66). Brill Publishers.

Ultimately, Collett reaches an important conclusion that should be driving our understanding of reading, teaching reading, and reading policy: “At times controversial, the science of reading is an ongoing body of research, ‘an area for inquiry rather than a foregone conclusion’ (Woulfin et al., 2020, p. S111).”

Parents, the media, politicians, and anyone advocating for better literacy instruction must have this volume at their side in order to navigate this debate in ways that could benefit our teachers and their students.

Misinformation and misusing terms result in harmful debates and ultimately extremely harmful educational policy.

See Also

Thomas, P.L. (2020). How to end the Reading War and serve the literacy needs of all students: A primer for parents, policy makers, and people who care. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Fact Checking the “Science of Reading”: A Quick Guide for Teachers

Policy Statement on the “Science of Reading” (NEPC)

Making Early Literacy Policy Work: Three Considerations for Policymakers Based on Kentucky’s “Read to Succeed” Act (NEPC)

Red Flags, Red Herrings, and Common Ground: An Expert Study in Response to State Reading Policy

[1] Terms included:

Annotation
Argumentative Writing
Assessment
Background Knowledge
Biliteracy
Close Reading
Comprehension
Comprehension Strategies
Comprehensive Literacy Instruction
Construction-Integration (CI) Model
Context
Contextual Reading Model
Critical Literacy and Critical Media Literacy
Cueing Systems
Culturally Responsive Instruction
Decoding
Diffferentiation
Digital Literacies
Direct Instruction
Disciplinary Literacy
Discourse Analysis
Discussion
Dyslexia
Embodied Literacies
Emergent Literacy
Fluency
Four-Part Mental Processor
Genre
Gradual Release of Responsibility
Grammar and Mechanics
Graphic Organizers
Guided Reading/Writing
Independent Reading/Writing
Informational text Integrated Instruction
Intervention
Language Development
Learning Progressions
Literacy/Literacies
Literary Devices
Mentor Texts
Miscue Analysis
Modeling
Morphology
Motivation
Multicultural Literature
Multimodality
Narrative Text
New Literacies
Peer Response
Perspective and Point of View
Phonics
Phonological and Phonemic Awareness
Pragmatic Knowledge
Question Answer Relationship
Read Aloud
Readability
Reading Recovery
Reading-Writing Relationships
Reciprocal Teaching
Rhetorical Factors and Devices
Running Record
Scafffolding
Science of Reading
Semantics
Sentence Frames
Shared Reading/Writing
Sight Words
Simple View of Reading
Small-Group Instruction
Sociocultural Perspective
Standards
Story Elements/Story Grammar
Text Structures and Text Features
Theme
Thesis
Think Aloud
Transactional Theory
Translanguaging
Understanding
Vocabulary Instruction
Voice
Workshop (Reading & Writing)
Writing Process
Zone of Proximal Development