The Pot, the Kettle, and the Reading Wars

 

The Questions Lyn Stone Never Answered

I recently read a post by Lyn Stone in which she expressed concern about Lucy Calkins appearing at a reading conference. Stone wrote that she is "interested in accountability before reconciliation" and suggested that before being welcomed, Calkins should publicly acknowledge where she was wrong, apologise for the damage caused, and explain what she is doing now to correct it.

On that principle, I have no disagreement.

 

Accountability matters. The question is whether we apply that principle consistently. Because when I raised questions about orthographic mapping, the teaching of high-frequency words, the role of memorisation, and why so many children can read Malay or Romanised Mandarin but struggle with English, I did not receive accountability, discussion, or debate.

I was blocked. Not once, but repeatedly by members of a literacy community that often speaks about evidence, science, and open inquiry.

In 2020, I publicly invited Lyn Stone to engage with questions that I believed were important. I asked whether there was research explaining why many children disengage from learning to read, why they could often read Malay but not English, and whether research existed supporting the teaching of consonants with extraneous sounds. Those questions were not hidden. They were asked openly.

No answers came.

In 2021, I challenged claims made regarding orthographic mapping and the assertion that words must be sounded out in order to become permanently stored in memory. I presented counterarguments based on my own experience teaching struggling readers and invited debate. Again, no meaningful discussion followed.

Instead, I became one more voice to be ignored. What troubles me today is not that Lyn Stone disagreed with me. Reasonable people disagree.

What troubles me is the apparent assumption that accountability only applies to certain people. When a famous educational figure gets things wrong, accountability is demanded. When an independent educator asks inconvenient questions, blocking becomes acceptable.

When researchers challenge Whole Language, they are courageous truth tellers.

When someone challenges Orthographic Mapping theory, Science of Reading assumptions, or the pronunciation practices taught to beginning readers, they become inconvenient. Accountability appears to be a one-way street. The irony is difficult to miss.

For years I have been asking a simple question:

If children can learn to read transparent orthographies with relative ease, why do so many struggle specifically with English?

I have argued that confusion plays a larger role than many experts are willing to acknowledge. I have argued that children often discover patterns and analogies for themselves. I have argued that rote memorisation of common words is not the villain it is frequently portrayed to be. I have argued that many educational theories are accepted long before they are proven beyond reasonable doubt.

These arguments may be right. They may be wrong. But they deserve engagement rather than dismissal. The scientific attitude is not to silence dissent. It is to answer it.

What I find fascinating is that the people who speak most passionately about evidence rarely test their own assumptions against determined critics. They debate each other. They appear on the same podcasts. They endorse the same books. They attend the same conferences. But what happens when someone outside the circle asks uncomfortable questions?

Too often, the response is silence. Or blocking. Or ridicule.

Then years later we hear calls for accountability.

Very well. Let us have accountability.

Let us ask why so many children remain struggling readers despite decades of reforms; why functional illiteracy remains stubbornly high;why educational fashions come and go while the casualties remain the same; why theories that fail to explain obvious realities are still defended as settled science.

And let us ask whether educators who refuse to engage with critics bear some responsibility for the continuation of those problems.

If accountability is important before reconciliation, then it should apply equally to everyone. Not only to the people we disagree with. Not only to the people who have fallen from favour.

Not only to yesterday's heroes. But also to today's experts. Because karma has an interesting habit.

The questions we refuse to answer today often return tomorrow, louder than before.

 And when they do, the rest of us may be tempted to ask:

"Were you here to engage with criticism, acknowledge what you got wrong, and answer the questions people have been asking for years?"

"Because if not, perhaps you shouldn't be lecturing others about accountability."