Yascha Mounk, a political science professor at Johns Hopkins, has been making the rounds promoting his new book, The Identity Trap. He said something recently that really got my attention. He observed that when likeminded people debate political and moral questions, their conclusions become "more radical than the beliefs of the individual members." This got me thinking of how hard it can be in some quarters to push back against what is accepted group orthodoxy. It's all too easy to be charged with blasphemy and excommunicated from the group, and good luck getting your reputation and social network back. I'm connecting these group dynamics with what I've witnessed in public education for the last two decades. In case you weren't aware of it, we've had "reading wars" between the "pro-phonics" crowd, who are usually conservative, and the "balanced literacy" boosters who certainly lean left. How you politicize reading I frankly don't understand but it happened. For many years, a few names in reading instruction were pretty much revered: the duo of Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell, as well as Lucy Calkins. My school district used their materials for literacy instruction. They were strong proponents of the balanced literacy approach, and therefore deemphasized phonics. Who can argue with a balanced approach? It sounds so reasonable.  All too often we heard that we were delivering "data driven instruction" meaning it was proven that this was the best method for teaching reading. And this method was used all over the country, with millions of kids supposedly being taught to read. But they weren't. According to the New York Times, about 1 in 3 children in the USA cannot read at a basic level of comprehension. Black and Native American children have been especially failed by their schools as nearly 50% of these kids score "below basic" by 8th grade. The life trajectory of these children has been impaired massively, so many lives will not reach their full potential, so many lost opportunities. I know in the business of school book publishing, there are many complexities, and money plays an enormous role., but I have to wonder how much pushback Fountas, Pinnell, and Calkins received through the years. They were often treated as rock stars at education conventions, all the while making millions from America's school districts. Did the balanced approach crowd ever have reservations? Did they ever see merit in what the pro-phonics supporters had to say? Or did they close ranks and remain firm in their resolve that their approach was the only approach?  This problem obviously isn't unique to education. Religions and ideologies have perfected groupthink. To me, it underscores the need to hear opposing views, even unsettling ones, and let the most persuasive arguments win. It's not easy for sure, especially when one's identity and tribe are so intertwined with one's ideas and positions.  Peter T.