Thanks for this analysis. The only point I have reservations about is the conclusion for "Context 6"--i.e., that we probably agree on more than we think.
That may be true about some things, but there are reading experts out there who say that, sure, building knowledge is fine, but there's no evidence that it improves reading comprehension. So it's okay to build knowledge in social studies or science, but it has no place in the two-hour literacy block. (This is an argument that, for example, Tim Shanahan has made.)
In practice, this often means that kids don't get much access to knowledge at all, because the reading block takes up so much of the school day -- sometimes more than 2 hours, especially in schools where test scores are low (which are also the very schools serving kids who need in-school access to knowledge the most).
Absolutely agree. He’s wrong about the evidence base, for one. But when you get to the details, I’m not sure how much disagreement there is. I think it was on the The Literacy View podcast (Nov 2025) that he was criticizing knowledge-building and then proceeds to say something like “If knowledge-building did XYZ that would be a good way to do it,” and proceeds to basically describe what knowledge-building is. In other words, the conversation strongly implied that he didn’t understand fundamental basics of what knowledge-building is. So what he’s been critiquing, is apparently different from what you and I and all knowledge proponents are talking about. He said he hasn’t look at CKLA.
I do give a lot of grace to people for not being experts on everything, but I find it so outrageous for someone of his stature to go on a podcast as the “expert” in this topic, and not even know the basics. And add to that the conflict of interest of being an author of a basal curriculum. That episode has a lot of commentary about how “being loud doesn’t make you right” as though we just be quiet about something so important.
Thanks for this analysis. The only point I have reservations about is the conclusion for "Context 6"--i.e., that we probably agree on more than we think.
That may be true about some things, but there are reading experts out there who say that, sure, building knowledge is fine, but there's no evidence that it improves reading comprehension. So it's okay to build knowledge in social studies or science, but it has no place in the two-hour literacy block. (This is an argument that, for example, Tim Shanahan has made.)
In practice, this often means that kids don't get much access to knowledge at all, because the reading block takes up so much of the school day -- sometimes more than 2 hours, especially in schools where test scores are low (which are also the very schools serving kids who need in-school access to knowledge the most).
Absolutely agree. He’s wrong about the evidence base, for one. But when you get to the details, I’m not sure how much disagreement there is. I think it was on the The Literacy View podcast (Nov 2025) that he was criticizing knowledge-building and then proceeds to say something like “If knowledge-building did XYZ that would be a good way to do it,” and proceeds to basically describe what knowledge-building is. In other words, the conversation strongly implied that he didn’t understand fundamental basics of what knowledge-building is. So what he’s been critiquing, is apparently different from what you and I and all knowledge proponents are talking about. He said he hasn’t look at CKLA.
I do give a lot of grace to people for not being experts on everything, but I find it so outrageous for someone of his stature to go on a podcast as the “expert” in this topic, and not even know the basics. And add to that the conflict of interest of being an author of a basal curriculum. That episode has a lot of commentary about how “being loud doesn’t make you right” as though we just be quiet about something so important.
The answer to this question is yes.
Wow--congratulations! You fit all this into one post. It took me four:
Types of Knowledge: https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/pathways-to-information-accessing?r=5spuf
The Tricks of the Trade: https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/pathways-to-information-accessing-15e?r=5spuf
The Effort of Explanation: https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/pathways-to-information-accessing-361?r=5spuf
Patterns of Language on Parade: https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/pathways-to-information-accessing-a31?r=5spuf
Hey - nice! I will definitely read through these. Thank you for linking.
And you'll want to read this provocative piece, too--The prior knowledge paradox: what to do with what they know by Sarah Cottinghatt (https://cognitivecoaching.substack.com/p/the-prior-knowledge-paradox-what). It'll give you lots to think about.