Bloodletting, Phonics, and Academic Freedom
Disturbing things are happening in this world.
Another school shooting, this time in Bend.
And more people have joined a club
that nobody ever wants to belong to.
Those of us who have lost someone we cared about
to mass violence know that club all too well.
It's a membership nobody asks for,
and one nobody can ever resign from.
My heart goes out to its newest members.
But that's not what I want to write about this afternoon.
I know. Shocking! /s
No, today I'm returning to a subject
I've become rather passionate about:
The science of reading.
And apparently, there's still a "debate"
about whether the people training our teachers
should actually be required to teach them
how children learn to read.
Imagine that!
I've heard some truly awful arguments
from apologists defending the status quo.
One of my favorites?
"Academic freedom!"
Apparently, professors shouldn't have to teach
future teachers the evidence-based foundations
of reading instruction
because doing so would interfere
with their academic freedom.
Well, isn't that convenient?
Imagine a medical school
still teaching bloodletting
as legitimate medical science.
Imagine its professors insisting
that requiring them to teach modern medicine
would violate their academic freedom.
Now imagine that institution
demanding the right to remain accredited,
to award medical degrees,
and to send its graduates into hospitals
as qualified physicians.
Would we accept that?
Of course not!
And yet, when it comes to preparing teachers,
suddenly we're supposed to pretend
that professional standards
are an assault on academic liberty.
Why?
Why should the education of our children
be held to a lesser standard
than the treatment of our patients?
So today, I called my state representative.
And I made my position perfectly clear.
I want Oregon to tie accreditation
for institutions of higher learning
that prepare future teachers
to strict adherence to the science of reading.
Not vague promises.
Not voluntary guidelines.
Not another round of recommendations
that institutions can quietly ignore.
Strict, enforceable standards
grounded in the scientific evidence
of how children actually learn to read.
Including systematic, explicit phonics instruction.
And if an institution refuses to comply?
Then it should lose its accreditation
to prepare future teachers.
Period.
Because what good is accreditation
if it doesn't guarantee
that the professionals being trained
are actually receiving
an education grounded in evidence?
Let me be perfectly clear.
Academic freedom matters.
Professors should be free to research,
to criticize, to debate,
and even to examine discredited ideas.
But teaching an outdated practice
as a historical curiosity
is one thing.
Sending graduates into classrooms
trained to use it as though
the evidence had never changed?
That's quite another.
You can teach bloodletting
in the history of medicine.
You don't get to teach it
as the standard of care.
And you shouldn't get to do
the educational equivalent
while claiming that accreditation
somehow makes you immune
from scientific accountability.
So yes, teach whatever theories
you want to investigate.
Debate the evidence.
Challenge the consensus.
Conduct new research.
That's academic freedom.
But if you want the privilege
of being an accredited institution
that prepares the next generation
of professional educators?
Then you have an obligation
to teach them what the evidence supports.
And if you insist on teaching
discredited practices
as though they were established science?
Then you can keep your academic freedom.
But you don't get to keep your accreditation.
Because academic freedom
is not freedom from accountability.
And accreditation
should never be a license
to disregard the evidence.
Accreditation is supposed to mean something.
It means an institution has met
certain standards of professional preparation.
And those standards should evolve
as our scientific understanding improves.
That's why I believe Oregon should require
every teacher-preparation program
to adhere to the established findings
of the science of learning,
of which the science of reading
is an essential part.
Not just in what future teachers are taught,
but in how they're taught.
Because if we're going to demand
that teachers use evidence-based methods
in their classrooms,
shouldn't we expect the professors
who prepare them
to do the same?
And I don't expect every professor
to transform their teaching overnight.
But I do expect tangible progress.
Demonstrable changes.
Measurable improvements.
A genuine effort to incorporate
scientifically supported instructional methods
into the college classroom.
Not another committee.
Not another promise.
Not another document gathering dust.
Actual progress.
Because accreditation shouldn't mean
an institution met some standards
once upon a time.
It should mean that institution
continues to meet them
as the evidence advances.
Academic freedom gives professors
the right to challenge the science.
To question the evidence.
To demand stronger studies.
To expose weaknesses in the research.
And to produce new evidence
that might overturn the consensus.
That's how science advances.
But disagreement is not disproof.
And demanding more evidence
doesn't make the evidence
we already have disappear.
Until credible, reproducible research
provides sufficient reason
to revise the scientific consensus,
that consensus should remain
the foundation of professional preparation.
You have every right
to challenge established science.
But you don't get to substitute
your personal objections
for scientific evidence.
And you certainly don't get
to demand accreditation
for teaching discredited practices
as though the evidence
had never existed.
Academic freedom protects your right
to challenge the consensus.
It does not give you the right
to ignore it without consequences
for professional accreditation.
Also if you aren't working to adapt your courses
to the science of learning
What am I paying you for?
Another school shooting, this time in Bend.
And more people have joined a club
that nobody ever wants to belong to.
Those of us who have lost someone we cared about
to mass violence know that club all too well.
It's a membership nobody asks for,
and one nobody can ever resign from.
My heart goes out to its newest members.
But that's not what I want to write about this afternoon.
I know. Shocking! /s
No, today I'm returning to a subject
I've become rather passionate about:
The science of reading.
And apparently, there's still a "debate"
about whether the people training our teachers
should actually be required to teach them
how children learn to read.
Imagine that!
I've heard some truly awful arguments
from apologists defending the status quo.
One of my favorites?
"Academic freedom!"
Apparently, professors shouldn't have to teach
future teachers the evidence-based foundations
of reading instruction
because doing so would interfere
with their academic freedom.
Well, isn't that convenient?
Imagine a medical school
still teaching bloodletting
as legitimate medical science.
Imagine its professors insisting
that requiring them to teach modern medicine
would violate their academic freedom.
Now imagine that institution
demanding the right to remain accredited,
to award medical degrees,
and to send its graduates into hospitals
as qualified physicians.
Would we accept that?
Of course not!
And yet, when it comes to preparing teachers,
suddenly we're supposed to pretend
that professional standards
are an assault on academic liberty.
Why?
Why should the education of our children
be held to a lesser standard
than the treatment of our patients?
So today, I called my state representative.
And I made my position perfectly clear.
I want Oregon to tie accreditation
for institutions of higher learning
that prepare future teachers
to strict adherence to the science of reading.
Not vague promises.
Not voluntary guidelines.
Not another round of recommendations
that institutions can quietly ignore.
Strict, enforceable standards
grounded in the scientific evidence
of how children actually learn to read.
Including systematic, explicit phonics instruction.
And if an institution refuses to comply?
Then it should lose its accreditation
to prepare future teachers.
Period.
Because what good is accreditation
if it doesn't guarantee
that the professionals being trained
are actually receiving
an education grounded in evidence?
Let me be perfectly clear.
Academic freedom matters.
Professors should be free to research,
to criticize, to debate,
and even to examine discredited ideas.
But teaching an outdated practice
as a historical curiosity
is one thing.
Sending graduates into classrooms
trained to use it as though
the evidence had never changed?
That's quite another.
You can teach bloodletting
in the history of medicine.
You don't get to teach it
as the standard of care.
And you shouldn't get to do
the educational equivalent
while claiming that accreditation
somehow makes you immune
from scientific accountability.
So yes, teach whatever theories
you want to investigate.
Debate the evidence.
Challenge the consensus.
Conduct new research.
That's academic freedom.
But if you want the privilege
of being an accredited institution
that prepares the next generation
of professional educators?
Then you have an obligation
to teach them what the evidence supports.
And if you insist on teaching
discredited practices
as though they were established science?
Then you can keep your academic freedom.
But you don't get to keep your accreditation.
Because academic freedom
is not freedom from accountability.
And accreditation
should never be a license
to disregard the evidence.
Accreditation is supposed to mean something.
It means an institution has met
certain standards of professional preparation.
And those standards should evolve
as our scientific understanding improves.
That's why I believe Oregon should require
every teacher-preparation program
to adhere to the established findings
of the science of learning,
of which the science of reading
is an essential part.
Not just in what future teachers are taught,
but in how they're taught.
Because if we're going to demand
that teachers use evidence-based methods
in their classrooms,
shouldn't we expect the professors
who prepare them
to do the same?
And I don't expect every professor
to transform their teaching overnight.
But I do expect tangible progress.
Demonstrable changes.
Measurable improvements.
A genuine effort to incorporate
scientifically supported instructional methods
into the college classroom.
Not another committee.
Not another promise.
Not another document gathering dust.
Actual progress.
Because accreditation shouldn't mean
an institution met some standards
once upon a time.
It should mean that institution
continues to meet them
as the evidence advances.
Academic freedom gives professors
the right to challenge the science.
To question the evidence.
To demand stronger studies.
To expose weaknesses in the research.
And to produce new evidence
that might overturn the consensus.
That's how science advances.
But disagreement is not disproof.
And demanding more evidence
doesn't make the evidence
we already have disappear.
Until credible, reproducible research
provides sufficient reason
to revise the scientific consensus,
that consensus should remain
the foundation of professional preparation.
You have every right
to challenge established science.
But you don't get to substitute
your personal objections
for scientific evidence.
And you certainly don't get
to demand accreditation
for teaching discredited practices
as though the evidence
had never existed.
Academic freedom protects your right
to challenge the consensus.
It does not give you the right
to ignore it without consequences
for professional accreditation.
Also if you aren't working to adapt your courses
to the science of learning
What am I paying you for?
