Sorry, I should have been clearer, totally agree about the podcast being a poorer source on the reality and history, and just not trustworthy on the big picture. The article you shared is a fantastic resource, but I would think better of it if it had laid out the sort of strong, pragmatic argument you made here about teachers' autonomy. The article really doesn't want to question the status quo, which would be fine for a historical overview, but feels incongruous with the constant needling of anyone who happens to be pushing phonics (whether because of concerns about dyslexia or neuroscience).
I also didn't mean to suggest those terms were invented by that article, just that they reflect the perspective of the people who use them. I'm assuming initial proponents of the "simple view of literacy" didn't describe it that way, just as we might call "whole language" something different if it ends up being discredited (cf. the focus on cueing in TFA).
Yeah I think we're kidding ourselves if we think there's not some level of aesthetics involved here. I would imagine most teachers (not all but most) would like it if teaching were a holistic, organic journey of learning and discovery--I'm not disparaging here, that sounds nice to me too--to the point they'll really try to make those approaches work over more proven/grounded ones that are more assembly line and impersonal. And I buy that a fair amount of animosity against NCLB played a role too.
> I would think better of it if it had laid out the sort of strong, pragmatic argument you made here about teachers' autonomy
I wouldn't mind something more concrete either. There's educational research out there, but not a ton, and what I've read is pretty non-committal and not very prescriptive. I don't know if that's in deference to "trust teachers" or what have you. I do know that from time to time, teachers who are trying very hard to teach their kids using old, busted techniques they learned in school and are--rightfully so--super bitter when they discover "new" techniques that are decades old and proven more effective, so it's not like there's not an audience for this stuff.
Mostly I think this argument is just two sides that don't trust each other at all, and they're lobbing whatever they can over the wall to try and win the argument (you don't care about dyslexia, you're dooming children to illiteracy to stick it to Bush, blah blah blah). I think that's a big problem. Education in the US is super messed up despite costing a ton, everyone knows it, and it's probably impossible to fix because of the political and bureaucratic structures involved. But it definitely doesn't help when our educators are rejecting government educational research because of (earned) political/cultural mistrust.
I also didn't mean to suggest those terms were invented by that article, just that they reflect the perspective of the people who use them. I'm assuming initial proponents of the "simple view of literacy" didn't describe it that way, just as we might call "whole language" something different if it ends up being discredited (cf. the focus on cueing in TFA).