To my followers who are of many different faiths and beliefs, I wish you all a very Happy Holiday.

I’m using this week to prepare my family’s holiday celebration.

The blog resumes next week with a very interesting entry.

Minda Marshell and I will be discussing a project we are starting in South Africa. It will involve providing in-service to teachers based on the ideas of Tim Razinski and Mary Jo Flesch. We will train teachers to use repeated reading to improve both fluency and comprehension.

See you next week- Dr. Sam

Mary Jo Fresch talks about her newest book, The Phonics Handbook. It is a valuable resource for teachers in any phonics program. It provides up-to-date, research-based answers to all your phonics questions.

An Interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

I first met Mary Jo at an NCET conference in St. Louis. She and David Harrison had just released their newest book, and they were introducing it at the conference. The picture includes me, David Harrison, Mary Jo Fresch and Glenda Nugent. She was my co-editor for The Missouri Journal.

LINK to blog

This was one of my first experiences seeing how authors roll out their new books. It was an exciting time. I was able to attend their sessions and do both a Missouri Reader article and a blog about their new book. It was a great learning experience. In the years since, I have written about several more of her books. See her website to find out what the books were all about. They were first and foremost teacher-friendly professional books with tons of great teaching ideas.

With this latest book, she takes things to the next level. The book’s title is The Phonics Handbook. On the one hand, if you are looking for research-based answers for the questions the kids often ask about phonics as you teach, the answers are in the book and easy to find. On the other hand, if you are looking for a standalone book to use in teaching your own phonics program, she identifies teaching strands and provides sample lessons. Let’s learn more about Mary Jo and hear what she has to say in the interview. You can use the information in the talking points graphic to move to the part of the interview that interests you the most.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (Taken from her website)

.

Mary Jo has a very useful webpage with lots of practical teaching resources. Here is a screen capture of her site. To use the menu bar below (decodable poems, etc.), go to her website LINK.

While you’re on the site, be sure to explore the professional books she has. I especially like the partner poems and word ladders. They give students a chance to apply and use the phonics strategies they learn in a fun, engaging way.

Conclusion:

While Mary Jo has resources appropriate for both beginning and intermediate students, I think teachers at the middle school (and even high school) levels will find that, if they use this book, they can determine which phonics to teach at those levels. I also highly recommend that, if you are a middle school teacher trying to figure out a phonics program that will help your students learn the sound-symbol relation and to internalize and use them, you add this book to your professional library. In the meantime, whether you are a beginning teacher just learning about how to teach sound-symbol relations or a veteran teacher needing a research-based answer to the questions students often pose about words during lessons, I think you’ll find that Mary Jo’s new handbook will be a useful addition to your professional library.

Until next week, Happy Reading and Writing

Dr. Sam

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Copyrighted materials for Mary Jo Fresch were used with permission. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

The Believe Project: Using Culturally Responsive Materials to Teach Literacy

Julius B. Anthony is another long-time literacy friend. We have collaborated on several projects in the St. Louis Area. We first met when his group, The St. Louis Black Authors, gave a presentation for one of our local ILA council meetings. Everyone was impressed with the group and their original publications. Juluis presented one of his children‘s books. Subsequently, Juluis became involved with our local ILA groups and eventually became the president of our ILA local council.

I got to watch firsthand as Juluis pioneered his Believe Projects. He now has 14 in place and is currently expanding to include more preschool sites. Here is a link to his Facebook page and a screen capture of two of his most recent posts LINK.

The first post talks about his training sessions for preschool teachers and daycare programs

.

The other post talks about his call for guest readers at some of his Believe project sites:

Here is a link to videos of several of the Believe Literacy Labs. I would mention that the Woodland school lab is located in the building where I spent 18 years of my Title I career. I was especially excited to go to the grand opening of that one. LINK.

As you can see, each lab is spacious and well-stocked with culturally relevant books. Some are located at schools, and others are in community centers, including one at the Ferguson Community Center. Local artists completed the murals.

It is rather clear that the Believe projects are carrying out their main mission, which is as follows;

If you want to find out more about this amazing project, be sure to listen to the video of the interview below. I’ve gone on record several times, stating that I think this project could serve as a model for those interested in promoting culturally relevant literacy projects. Be sure to listen to the full interview below.

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

Julius Anthony owns the copyright to the Believe project and all its works.

David Harrison demonstrates his innovative uses of poetry- The result is reading gains for students of all ages—an interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito.

David Harrison is a longtime friend of mine and a longtime friend of literacy, especially in the state of Missouri, where he just completed his term as the state’s Poet Laureate. His accomplishments in literacy are many. As you will discover in his biography below, he has 110 titles that have sold millions of copies worldwide. He has collaborated with Dr. Tim Rasinski on several projects. He has written the short passages for the book: The Fluency Development Lesson: Closing the Reading Gap. They are designed to both build students’ background and provide them with tools to think about text meaningfully. What follows is his biography and a YouTube video of the interview in which he explains his current work.

BIOGRAPHY

David L. Harrison

David just completed his term as Missouri’s 7^th Poet Laureate. He writes for all ages, including poetry, fiction, and nonfiction for young readers, as well as classroom books for educators. His 110 titles have sold millions of copies worldwide, have been anthologized more than 200 times, and have been translated into a dozen languages. David Harrison Elementary School is named for him, as is a conference room in Springfield’s main library. Among his numerous awards are The Christopher Medal, Pioneer in Education for distinguished service to public education, and the Laura Ingalls Wilder Award for Children’s Literature. Two of his books have represented Missouri at the National Book Fair in Washington, D.C. He was one of six poets selected by the N.Y.C. Public Library System as 2020’s best books of children’s poetry. National Council for Teachers of English has five times chosen his work for its, “Most Notable Books of Poetry for Children.” He has two degrees in science and two honorary doctorates in letters. He is Drury University’s poet laureate and hosts a weekly newspaper column, Poetry from Daily Life. David has new books with four publishers scheduled for release this year. He lives with his wife, Sandy, in Springfield, Missouri. Here is his website link: LINK

Here is a link to the interview. In it, David tells all about the work he is doing

Here is the Piggy Wiglet tattoo:

Piggy Wiglet is out of print but can sometimes be found on resale sites like ThriftBooks. As David explained in the interview, this is a shot at a tattoo that one of his followers has on her leg. She REALLY likes the book. LINK

Here is a link to The Fluency Development Lesson: Closing the Reading Gap LINK

Here is the collage of activities David shared during the interview:

Here is David’s latest book: LINK

Conclusions. David is an amazing person. He has time to publish a blog, has a webpage and remains active in the world of literacy. I’ll remind readers that the work he is collaborating on makes great use of poetry as part of an overall program of repeated reading. The form of repeated reading they are using uses meaningful text and has been shown to have a greater effect size than phonics. As mentioned in the interview, this model is not meant to be a replacement for a phonics program; rather, it is an addition to a phonics program. David’s work is a real game-changer and works for both elementary and middle school students. I hope you will explore the many takeaways you will find in David’s work.

Until next week, Happy Reading and Writing

Dr. Sam

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Copyrighted materials for David L Harrison were used with permission. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

Fluency can (and should) be taught- My reflections on the work of Dr. Tim Rasinski.

By Dr. Sam Bommarito

I’ve known Tim Rasinski for many years now. I’ve interviewed him on many occasions and even collaborated with him on writing articles for Literacy Today. His work has had a major influence on my own teaching and writing. It has also influenced what I say to teachers about the best ways to help students understand how words work. That includes helping students develop a rich understanding of sound-symbol relations and to use their orthographic knowledge to unlock words. My most important takeaway from his work on fluency is that fluency can and should be taught. Dr. Sam, do you really mean one can teach fluency? Yes, you can, and Dr. Rasinski has spent a great deal of time outlining exactly how to do that.

Early on-

I first heard about Dr. Rasinski’s ideas on teaching fluency when he spoke to our local IRA council. I wrote a blog about that in  2018 LINK. In his presentation, he argued that teaching reading was both Art and Science. This outlined the foundational ideas for the book he later co-authored: Artfully Teaching the Science of Reading LINK. I find that book attracts readers from all sides of the great debate. But that is a topic for another day.

Here is my key takeaway from his 2018 presentation. This is a screen capture of one of his slides, along with my comments.

At this point, it is worth noting that later research found his methods for repeated reading to be highly effective. The most recent research indicates an effect size of 0.75, LINK,  LINK. That is greater than the effect size for teaching phonics, which ranges from 0.51 to 0.70.   I’m not saying that to advocate for replacing phonics. I’m suggesting that teachers use both. This information about the effect size of repeated reading really changed the way I view the whole topic. Repeated reading, done as Rasinski suggests, can be a real game-changer for practicing teachers.

What happened next-

Tim began presenting at various conferences advocating for the use of repeated reading. This video LINK does a great job of showing the kinds of things he said. Here are two important takeaways.

n this presentation, Tim asks teachers to try using the Fluency Development Lesson. Many did, and many got amazing results. I’ll remind you that, since the beginning, Tim has stressed that repeated reading is more effective when done for authentic reasons with authentic text. Keep that in mind if you want the best results.

What’s happening now:

There are now many more support materials available for teachers who want to pursue this kind of teaching. Dr. Rasinski has an X account (formerly Twitter), where he gives away free samples every M, W, and F. Go to @TimRasinski1 to see what he posts. He often links together more than one kind of resource. See below:

For those of you who are not familiar with Word Ladders (Dr. Rasinski’s go-to resource for word play), please see this explanation by Dr. Rasinski LINK.

I recently turned my blog over to Dr. Rasinski and David Harrison so they could talk about Using Repeated Reading & Poetry LINK.

I also interviewed Dr. Rasinski and Dr. Lynne Kulich about their new book. They co-authored it with David Harrison. LINK.

This book contains everything you need to carry out Fluency Development Lessons. It is a ready-to-implement set of 28 fluency development units organized into five knowledge strands, with 140 lessons to move students toward more fluent, proficient reading and joyful learning. Reproducible post-reading activities provide meaningful practice through word ladders, graphic organizers, and cloze activities. It is primarily designed for grades 1 through 5, with separate sections for each grade. Here is a link to the book: LINK.

IN CONCLUSION

For those of you who have already begun using the Fluency Development Lesson, please share your experience and tips for classroom implementation. For those of you who haven’t, I’ll extend the same invitation Dr. Rasinski did in his YouTube presentation.  Be sure to look at the activities suggested in the two slides from his video. If you like the results, take advantage of some of the new support materials that have been developed. Finally, to those of you wondering what a word study program for the middle grades might look like, try using the grades 4 and 5 units from this book and see if that helps. I’m hoping to put together a webinar on singing and performing your way into fluency. So, stay tuned, there’s more to come. Till next time:

Happy Reading and Writing

Dr. Sam Bommarito (the guy in the middle, taking flak from both sides)

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

Have we forgotten that play is the way our youngest learners learn? Have we forgotten that some readers learn best from other forms of phonics? By Doctor Sam Bommarito

I wanted to say more about two of the issues raised in the joint statement post that Michelle Ruhe and I wrote a few weeks ago. LINK.

First, in their zeal to get children off to an early start in reading, the social media advocates of SoR are ignoring important research in the field of early childhood. Here is a post I did about play. This interview with Jorden Page was done in preparation for my presentation at an early childhood conference.

A key takeaway from that interview is this: Early Readers use play to learn the foundational skills they need for reading. Using play in this manner fits their developmental stage. The practices being forced into early childhood programs by the SoR social media folks do not. Links to books that demonstrate the important role of play in early childhood, can be found in the blog post about the interview. The books offer both useful classroom ideas and insights into how play affects the brain. LINK

Harris and Sipay’s 6th Edition found that there is no advantage to getting an early start in reading instruction. When looking at students who received an early start in reading instruction, by 3rd grade, one could not tell who had received it.  

Second, while it is apparent that most children will benefit from a synthetic phonics program, some children don’t. SoR’s one-size-fits-all approach to teaching phonics fails to address the needs of such students. LINK, LINK. When reviewing the blog entry below, please note that some children do not learn from synthetic phonics. In addition, other children have already mastered the phonics skills being taught and are frustrated by having to learn things they already know. Failing to let these students continue to advance is hindering their reading progress.

Overall, I remain convinced that the best course of action to improve reading instruction would be to create local programs that draw on ideas and practices from both sides of the so-called reading debate.

Until next time: Happy Reading and Writing.

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

Perils, Prospects, and Possibilities

 A joint statement about the current state of the literacy world.

Perils, Prospects, and Possibilities

(under construction- we would like feedback)

By Sam Bommarito EdD & Michelle Ruhr MEd

Two Long-Time Reading Teachers

In this statement, we aim to explore the perils, prospects, and less desirable aspects of the current state of the literacy world. Then we want to chart a path that will improve the situation in the literacy world. Our vision for this path is to empower teachers and free their hands so they can implement the research-based practices that they need to support their students. This must be done within the confines of each district’s curriculum.  Please consider the following points:    

Education policy is being shaped by what we have come to call the social media version of SOR. Unfortunately, that version takes a dichotomous view of the reading process.   A recent study about TikTok users found that instead of adopting a broad perspective,

a nuanced approach to analyzing educational issues, TikTok users employed a binary, winner-take-all approach. LINK That approach has been criticized for taking too narrow a view and not considering all the evidence LINK.  It can also lead to both sides employing strawman tactics to attempt to discredit each other.

The real reason for the reading wars is that what works with one child doesn’t always work with another. Most children thrive on a code-emphasis approach. However, some do not. So, when the pendulum swings away from a meaning-emphasis approach to a code-emphasis approach, kids who need meaning-emphasis instruction are left out. The same is true when folks overdo meaning-based instruction. This blog entry from five years ago explains how Dr. Bommarito first arrived at this conclusion and why he advocates for a centrist position, utilizing research-based teaching methods from all sides. LINK. It is important to note that the terms code-based and meaning-based are terms taken from the very outset of the reading wars by Jean Chall, in her seminal book Learning to Read: The Great Debate LINK.

Emily Handford has not told the whole story. Here is a link to Michelle’s piece about that. LINK.

We are not alone in thinking Hanford’s position is questionable. Look at what Nick Covington has to say in his piece entitled Unsettling The Science of Reading: Who is Being Sold A Story? LINK.

Cognitive scientist and psycholinguist Mark Seidenberg, someone who would probably disagree mightily with me pedagogically, but from whom I have learned a lot, apparently feels a similar slipperiness with the “science of reading” label and what it represents:

I’m going to lay my cards on the table here: The treatment of PA [phonemic awareness] in the “science of reading”–the idea that a certain level of PA is prerequisite for reading, and that PA training should continue until the student becomes highly proficient at PA tasks regardless of how well they are reading–is emblematic of problems that have arisen within the SoR approach. It is an overprescription that reflects a shallow understanding of reading development, yet has become a major tenet of the “science of reading”. The PA situation and other developments suggest to me that the SoR is at risk of turning into a new pedagogical dogma, consisting of a small set of tenets loosely tied to some classic but dated research, supplemented by additional assumptions that are ad hoc and ill-advised…

Finally, about the expression “the science of reading”:  The term isn’t in wide use among researchers. There isn’t a field called “the science of reading,” and people rarely identify as “reading scientists,” in my experience. In reading education, the term has been taken up by a movement (often abbreviated SoR) to reform instruction, teacher education and curricula. This movement/approach is not the same as the body of research about reading. For one thing, the former has as yet incorporated very little of the latter.  (emphasis added)

He goes on to give the history of the term science of reading given by Timothy Shanahan LINK, and then explains Shanahan’s rather startling conclusion about Reading Recovery:

On the relation between Reading Recovery – an intervention method heavily criticized in Hanford’s Sold A Story – the brain, and the “Science of Reading,” Shanahan writes:

Somehow, students who are being taught in this way are still ending up reading much as the kids who receive explicit decoding instruction. The same could be said of approaches to reading that only teach words. As already noted, such approaches [like Reading Recovery] do not do as well as explicit decoding instruction in improving reading, yet how do students learn from them at all? According to basic research studies, they should not work; that they do should be a matter of more than intellectual curiosity.

Next week, we will continue with the blog, Part three of three. We will begin by examining the work of Dr. Tim Rasinski on the topic of repeated reading. Here is an excerpt from a piece by Nathaniel Hanford LINK that may get you interested in what Tim has to say:

Until Next Week- Happy Reading and Writing!

©2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito & Michelle Ruhe

Folks in the middle. We are taking flak from folks from all sides.

Blast from the Past: We need less bickering and more talk. By Dr. Sam Bommarito

In last week’s blog, Michelle Ruhe had questions about what Emily Hanford has said in her podcast series, Sold a Story. Michelle feels that Emily has not told the full story. She had questions for Emily and her followers. Last week, we said that there is a lot more to unpack concerning the post. We said that Michelle and I will coauthor part two of this blog. We are still in the process of trying to get a response from Emily and her followers. Accordingly, we are not yet ready to carry out part two.

As a result, I am posting a “blast from the past” that addresses many of these same issues.

Background on today’s post: The article we are examining is one that I wrote over four years ago. At that time, the debate between the two sides was becoming increasingly contentious. I believe in listening to all points of view. That is hard to do if the opponents refuse to engage or worse yet engage in a way that tries to bypass finding common ground using common sense. The article was published in Literacy Today. Let’s have a look at what it said. Here are some screen captures of the article:

Here is how AI summarizes the article:

I would like to emphasize that the concept of considering all perspectives and utilizing research from multiple sources is something I have been advocating over the past five years.  In my blog entries, you will find interviews with educators from all sides.  Recently, some SOR individuals on social media have claimed to have found the ultimate solution, citing research that supports their conclusion. According to that line of thinking, proponents of Balanced Literacy are simply clinging to outdated ideas. However, the point of view Michelle and I are advocating indicates that every time we go to one extreme (Code-Based) or the other (Meaning-Based), the pendulum swings back to the other side. That makes it abundantly clear that neither side by itself offers help to all the kids. To help all the kids, we need to draw on ideas and practices from all sides.

Dare to dream

Dr. Sam

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization. Links are provided on this page to follow the blog if you’d like to.

Michelle Ruhe, a veteran reading teacher, feels that Emily Hanford hasn’t told the full story.

An interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito.

For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Dr. Sam Bommarito (Dr. Sam). I have been in education for over 6 decades. I’ve been a High School Social Studies teacher, a Title 1 reading teacher, and a professional developer for Title 1. I’ve taught virtually every reading course required at the university level, including the content area reading course. I’m currently “retired” but I continue working in literacy. I write a weekly blog advocating for taking a centrist view in the so-called reading wars. I regularly explore social media looking for things to write about. This week I came across something exceptional. Let me share what I found:

This entry contained a concise summary of the criticisms of Hanford’s claims that have been circulating on the internet. I knew the moment I saw this post that I wanted to find out about the credentials of the person making it and to interview her to unpack what she said. Here is what I found out about her, along with a copy of the interview where she had the opportunity to fully explain her position.

Here is Michelle’s biography (taken from her blog) LINK:

YOUTUBE VIDEO OF THE INTERVIEW:

KEY TOPICS COVERED IN THE VIDEO:

Here is my analysis of the interview

In terms of her credentials, they are impeccable. She is a practicing teacher who is well-informed about all aspects of “the great debate.” She represents a group that is too often ignored in this great debate. That group consists of practicing teachers who were successful in improving students’ literacy performance. They did so by using some of the so-called “failed practices”-practices that are rooted in a constructivist approach to teaching. Unfortunately, many of these teachers have become so discouraged that they are leaving the teaching field LINK. The rest are characterized as clinging to the “old, failed methods.” Many state legislators have bought into that point of view. They are banning the use of any of these practices based on the belief that research has demonstrated that these practices have consistently failed to work. If that belief is true, then how can we explain places like Wilton, Pennsylvania. LINK?

As you will discover when you listen to the full video, Wilton is not alone in being successful, the most successful in the state, but also being banned. Michelle’s own district is caught in that same dilemma. I am very proud of the way my fellow teacher handled being in that unenviable position. Rather than rejecting Hanford’s position as wrong and hurtful, she saw it as having some merit and doing some good. In our conversation during the video, we both went on to suggest that true science requires the SOR advocates to consider modifying their position. That is a widely held belief by folks who consider themselves scientists; they believe that scientists do change their minds based on evidence. According to the world-famous physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, that is how scientists learn to think. LINK.

There is a lot more to unpack concerning the post. Because of that, next week Michelle Ruhe and I will coauthor part two of this blog. In the meantime, I hope Emily Hanford and her followers take our request seriously. Some places don’t fit your model that claims that all balanced literacy sites have failed. Doesn’t that mean it’s time to revise your model? That is the way science is supposed to work.

Happy Reading and Writing!

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)

A New Brain Study Finds Reading is a Complex, Flexible Process- Implications for the Social Media version of SOR by Dr. Sam Bommarito.

A new and important study has recently been released. It is a meta-analysis of studies on the brain and its functions. Overall, the study reports data from 3031 subjects and 5444 activation peaks in a total of 163 experiments.  I briefly discussed this study in one of my latest blogs. However, now that I’ve had a chance to really look over it, I realized that this study has the potential to be a real game-changer in our thinking about how we should conduct our literacy instruction. Here is a summary of what the study was about. It is taken from the website of Dr ASKY. “Dr ASKY” refers to a LinkedIn company profile and associated individuals, including the owner, Dr. Asif Sohrab, who is an MD doctor, entrepreneur, and science communicator. This page has over 11 M followers. Here is a LINK to the quote below. Here is a link to the main Facebook page for ASKY  LINK..

Additionally, here is the link to the study that the Dr. ASKY site is analyzing: LINK. The name of that study is The ‘reading’ brain: Meta-analytic insight into functional activation during reading in adults by Sabrina Turker, Beatrice Fumagall, Philipp Kuhnke. & Gesa Hartwigsen.

My thoughts about this analysis: Of special importance in these remarks is the observation that the brain reconfigures itself depending on how complex reading is. For instance, when comparing nonsense pseudo-words, the regions accessed are the ones the SOR folks always discuss —the regions for sounding unfamiliar words. However, the evidence supports the theory that the brain uses two routes depending on familiarity. THE BRAIN ACCESSES REAL WORDS USING THE PARTS OF THE BRAIN THAT ENGAGE MEMORY AND MEANING. So, there is more to reading real words than simply storing the code. As a teacher, I think it follows that there is more to reading than simply breaking the code. In addition, silent reading invokes more than the reader simply listening to themselves sounding out words. In fact, during silent reading, the brain actually suppresses vocalization. My take as a teacher is that silent reading comprehension involves more than just listening comprehension. That calls into question SOR’s definitions of comprehension.

The Dr. Askey site goes on to criticize the fact that the common tasks used in many of the brain studies don’t fully capture the natural reading brain’s activity. It suggests that understanding these differences could enhance our understanding of reading difficulties, such as dyslexia.

MIKE DROP

The current situation on social media seems to have evolved into an “us/them” winner-take-all battle about the issue of the best ways to teach reading. The two sides are SOR (as presented in social media) and Balanced Literacy. The dialogue involves defending one side or the other. The SOR side claims that it’s all “settled science” and that SOR should replace Balanced Literacy completely. The dialogue is often contentious. The goal of the Social Media version of SOR seems to be to eliminate Balanced Literacy permanently. The fact that Balanced Literacy means many different things to many different people leaves things open to the use of strawman arguments based on Balanced Literacy at its weakest or arguments based on a complete misunderstanding of what Balanced Literacy is.

One possible outcome of this new study could be that the dialogue could become even more divisive. The study contains research-based information that directly challenges some of the interpretations of Brain Research that form the underpinnings of the media-based SOR’s point of view. Especially since we are at a time in our country’s history when many view individuals with a different point of view as evil. The potential is there for this trend to rip apart our nation.

I want to propose a different path. It is apparent that science isn’t as settled as some claimed. To resolve that, we could ask a new set of questions. Where do both sides seem to agree? Let’s do what P.D. Pearson suggested and focus on practices instead of sides. I’d like to hear from all of you about places where you think we might agree. I’ll go first and suggest that I think we can all agree that some form of systematic phonics should be a part of any literacy program. So should the teaching of comprehension strategies. That means students should learn to internalize and apply these strategies. Finally, there is a growing belief from all sides that the use of the reading/writing connection should be included in literacy lessons.   Are there practices on which we can all agree? Do you have others? I’m hoping to hear from you either through the blog or on Facebook. BTW, if you have programs you like, rather than suggest the complete program, instead pick out the practices within the program that research demonstrates are effective and be ready to discuss which students might be effective for. It’s time to find some common ground.

Dare to Dream!

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

PS If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following it to ensure you won’t miss future posts.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.