[Reading-hall-of-fame] A piece I felt I had to write

[P David Pearson]

I posted the attached piece on FaceBook out of respect from one of our
departed RHF colleagues, Marie Clay, whose contributions have been called
into question in an APM series of podcasts by Emily Hanford with the
umbrella title of Sold a Story
<https://features.apmreports.org/sold-a-story/>.  I have listened to the
first two, and I'm focusing on the second, which is mainly about Marie
Clay's work. Hanford unpacks her account of Marie's contributions and goes
on to tell us why they are misguided. To quote Hanford, "In this episode,
I’m gonna tell you where this idea comes from. I’m gonna tell you what’s
wrong with it."  I've embedded a link to the piece I posted on FaceBook, a
medium which not all of us use.

So I am taking the liberty of sharing it directly. Below is the
introduction to it. If you like, you can read the whole piece here
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/llizr8t9cwve4y3/Marie%20Clay.A%20personal%20reflection.Final.pdp..pdf?dl=0>.
My piece is not really about Hanford. It is really my 15 year overdue piece
about Marie's legacy in our field. That said, I think we all need to be
aware of Hanford's reporting and its impact on policy.

*A note to the reader*: I wrote the initial draft of this essay soon after
Marie Clay’s death in 2007, but I failed to finish it in time for inclusion
in a publication honoring her contributions to the field. And it has rested
in a comfortable sinecure in the cloud since that time. About a week ago, I
happened on an American Public Media podcast by Emily Hanford, one that
cast doubt on the professional contributions of Marie Clay. Essentially,
Hanford blamed Dame Clay for America’s dismal reading performance when Clay
offered teachers an approach to promoting reading development that, at
least according to Hanford, is just plain wrong. And it is wrong, Hanford
added, because it is at odds with what we know because of recent advances
in the science of reading. Time to right that wrong by restoring phonics
first and fast to the top slot in our reading curriculum.

I was appalled and angered by this indictment for two reasons: (a) it is
based on a limited portrayal of scientific reading research (dare I say,
just plain wrong?), and (b) it was directed at scholar who has left us a
rich, perhaps unparalled, legacy of understandings about the nature of
reading acquisition, one to be celebrated not denigrated. At the height of
my rage, I remembered this unfinished tribute. Thanks to the search
affordances of our digital age, I found it—as I said, resting comfortably
in the cloud. So, I got to work and finished it for this occasion (Finally
met the deadline! Thanks for your patience, Marie). Today, I’ll forego a
point-by-point counter to Hanford’s outrageous claims in favor of an
argument for celebrating Professor Clay’s legacy.
-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

*"**“Today is the oldest you’ve ever been, and the youngest you’ll ever be
again.” – Eleanor Roosevelt*."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
P. David Pearson
Evelyn Lois Corey *Emeritus* Professor of Instructional Science
Graduate School of Education
University of California, Berkeley

email:  ppearson at berkeley.edu
other e-mail:  pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com
website for publications:  www.pdavidpearson.org
*******************
*Please use HOME ADDRESS for responses*
110 41st Street, Apt 401
Oakland CA 94611-5237
iPhone:  510 543 6508
****************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20221028/92302513/attachment.html>