I shouldn't be surprised anymore, yet I still am when people use things like "that research is 30 (or whatever number) years old" as an argument. Information doesn't necessarily have an expiration date. Many of Adriaan de Groot's findings about chess players in the 1940s are still well-supported today by follow-up research. I wonder if it's still true that the American Civil War came to an end in 1865, or did that change? Newton published his laws of motion in the 1600s; are those still valid? And don't get me started on Pythagoras and that pesky theorem he came up with 2000 or so years ago! Yes, old research can become outdated (we now know that humours don't cause disease), but simply citing the age of an article as if information suddenly ceases to be correct after a certain amount of time is so foolish.
And DR Jordana HUNTER, lead author of The Reading Guarantee, does indeed hold a PhD (as well as a law degree), thus providing her with scholarly credentials and a strong perspective on
Surely an academic with such an extensive set of credentials should have better control of the English language. As an English teacher, the pull quotes here are so painful to read.
Sadly, this overview reminds me of what was so frustratingly convoluted about my teacher education experience; the unsubstantiated suggestion that quality teaching is somehow about doing everything, combining every approach. Teach literacy with a spoonful of phonics and a spoonful of whole language. Teach key knowledge with a pinch of direct instruction and a pinch of inquiry based learning.
Thank you for providing this overview so none of us had to suffer through a complete reading of the paper. This kind of post makes me all the more grateful to be part of a school focused on cutting through the rubbish and doing what works.
Two interesting aspects are the claim that a particular circle of influence is closed and whether this report covers the best reasons for the policy and approaches. The definition of closed appears to be all non academic organizations that have favourable views of these policies.
However we know there are academics who also support these policies.
An honest report would cite the best academic research for both sides of an argument.
It would also address both sides of why different groups are not collaborating to resolve a contentious issue or highlight where they are.
This is a sad saga as it seems to have become petty and personal and more than slightly unacademic on the other side. But at the end of the day what teachers want is evidence informed approaches that impact positively on student outcomes. There is a moral imperative in that endeavour that seems to be lost in the ego driven narratives from the progressives. Their narratives appear to be more about protecting their own carefully curated academic perspectives and ideologies than approaching the issues - with curiosity, rigour and above all avoiding the big bias traps.
I shouldn't be surprised anymore, yet I still am when people use things like "that research is 30 (or whatever number) years old" as an argument. Information doesn't necessarily have an expiration date. Many of Adriaan de Groot's findings about chess players in the 1940s are still well-supported today by follow-up research. I wonder if it's still true that the American Civil War came to an end in 1865, or did that change? Newton published his laws of motion in the 1600s; are those still valid? And don't get me started on Pythagoras and that pesky theorem he came up with 2000 or so years ago! Yes, old research can become outdated (we now know that humours don't cause disease), but simply citing the age of an article as if information suddenly ceases to be correct after a certain amount of time is so foolish.
This made me laugh!
And DR Jordana HUNTER, lead author of The Reading Guarantee, does indeed hold a PhD (as well as a law degree), thus providing her with scholarly credentials and a strong perspective on
the role of sound evidence in any argument.
Surely an academic with such an extensive set of credentials should have better control of the English language. As an English teacher, the pull quotes here are so painful to read.
Sadly, this overview reminds me of what was so frustratingly convoluted about my teacher education experience; the unsubstantiated suggestion that quality teaching is somehow about doing everything, combining every approach. Teach literacy with a spoonful of phonics and a spoonful of whole language. Teach key knowledge with a pinch of direct instruction and a pinch of inquiry based learning.
Thank you for providing this overview so none of us had to suffer through a complete reading of the paper. This kind of post makes me all the more grateful to be part of a school focused on cutting through the rubbish and doing what works.
Good one
I love “rude upstarts”
Sloppy scholarship indeed.
I’d add it seems odd to make a fuss about non peer reviewed material in a non peer reviewed paper.
Zing! Very nice.
Two interesting aspects are the claim that a particular circle of influence is closed and whether this report covers the best reasons for the policy and approaches. The definition of closed appears to be all non academic organizations that have favourable views of these policies.
However we know there are academics who also support these policies.
An honest report would cite the best academic research for both sides of an argument.
It would also address both sides of why different groups are not collaborating to resolve a contentious issue or highlight where they are.
This is a sad saga as it seems to have become petty and personal and more than slightly unacademic on the other side. But at the end of the day what teachers want is evidence informed approaches that impact positively on student outcomes. There is a moral imperative in that endeavour that seems to be lost in the ego driven narratives from the progressives. Their narratives appear to be more about protecting their own carefully curated academic perspectives and ideologies than approaching the issues - with curiosity, rigour and above all avoiding the big bias traps.
Literally LOLing
She's made a fool of herself.