Why Should SMART People Enter The Toxic Soup?
“If you are a talented graduate, bursting with intellectual potential, would you like to work in an intolerant field of research, where new ideas are punished by name calling, ostracism and financial hardship, or would you prefer to apply your talents to a field where new ideas are welcome, and innovation is rewarded? – Eric Worrall commenting on lack of applicants entering climate science. http://www.educationviews.org/graduates-shunning-career-climate-change/
When something is considered a “settled science”, especially if there are political/philosophical overtones in the field, opponents and skeptics are treated rather shabbily. This comment about climate “science” reminds me of the experience of one reading expert, Jeanne Chall, who experienced similar insults as described above.
It was at an AERA (American Educational Research Association) gathering in 1964 that the first “scientific” approach to teaching of reading was proposed by Kenneth Goodman — a psycholinguistic process. He was challenged by Jeanne Chall, a longstanding proponent of the traditional method of phonics teaching, with this question: “How do you explain that your readers sometimes inserted words in their oral reading that weren't in the text?”
Now, that’s a significant observation. What if the text said: “Cocaine is harmful to people” and the reader was heard to say that cocaine was not harmful — wouldn't that possibly be a dangerous meaning conveyed or understood by the reader?
Goodman states in his book (On Reading, 1996) that he forgot what he answered.
Nonetheless, the Reading Wars rage on to this day — some assert that reading must be “taught” (via phonics, Chall) while some claim that the Whole Language (Goodman) approach is superior and that reading is “caught”.
Anyway, here is the story about Chall’s ostracism:
Jeanne Chall died in 1999 but in a reissue of her last book a foreword written by Marilyn Jager Adams made these potent observations:
“ . . .reviewing the research on phonics, Chall told me that if I wrote the truth, I would lose old friends and make new enemies. She warned me that I would never again be fully accepted by my academic colleagues . . . Sadly, however, as the evidence in favor of systematic, explicit phonics instruction for beginners increased, so too did the vehemence and nastiness of the backlash. The goal became one of discrediting not just the research, but the integrity and character of those who had conducted it. Chall was treated most shabbily . . . “ (pg vi , The Academic Achievement Challenge)
Speaking now for myself, a parent and now a grandparent with grandkids in the system, I can really understand why today’s parents just don't want to engage or be involved in this toxic soup called monopoly public education. I applaud the growing movement of parental choice through Education Savings Accounts where informed choices in the best interests of the child can be made instead of having to fight or get sucked into New Age untested experiments.