It’s Time to Empower Teachers by giving them access to ALL the tools they need to support their students’ literacy development: Part Two by Dr Sam Bommarito

For those of you who are new to my blog, here is a little background about me and the blog. I have been in education for nearly 5 decades. I have taught every grade from kindergarten through graduate school. I have worn many hats during my career, including high school social studies teacher, Title I reading specialist, Title I staff developer, Keynote Speaker, and national reading consultant. Of all the hats I’ve worn, the one that fits me best is that of a reading teacher. In that role, I want to speak to you, teacher to teacher. I want to offer advice on improving literacy instruction nationwide. Here is that advice in a nutshell:

“Local districts should be allowed to empower teachers by giving access to and training in ALL the tools they need to help their students’ literacy development.”

Creative Commons JPG

In part one of this two-part blog post, I argued that the real cause of decoding problems in reading is that students do not always receive the necessary phonics instruction. Some students need a deductive approach, i.e., direct instruction of synthetic phonics. Other students need an inductive approach,  an inquiry-based approach to phonics- some folks call that analytic phonics. Some thrive with either approach. Historically, literacy instruction has often swung between extremes on the best ways to teach decoding, so that students can internalize and use the orthographic knowledge they need to decode. Over the past four decades, there have been many battles over this point. No matter which side wins each battle, the kids always lose. At times, it’s the children who aren’t receiving the direct synthetic phonics they need. At other times, such as now, it’s the other students who aren’t receiving the inquiry-based methods they need to learn phonics. Some children thrive with either of these two methods; researchers such as Mary Jo Fresch have also identified additional methods.

What has happened during the 4 decades I have been teaching reading is that there are folks on each of the various sides of decoding instruction who cling to their methods and only their methods. So, we have periodic swings around the issue of teaching decoding. I offered this up as my explanation for the ever-swinging pendulum of reading instruction. The solution to this conundrum is easy to say but much harder to do. The solution is for all sides to recognize that tools from the “other side”  may be exactly what SOME of their students need at some point. I’m not suggesting we throw tools into the toolbox willy-nilly with the goal of giving teachers lots of tools. Instead, I suggest that all sides be willing to let teachers use research-based, effective tools, regardless of their origin. Teachers should use those tools in accordance with each district’s adopted curriculum. Currently, laws are being passed that strip districts of their authority to make their own curricular decisions. Those same laws promote a single form of decoding instruction to the exclusion of all others. A review of all the research does not support taking this step. In part two of this blog post, I want to discuss how misconceptions about how comprehension should be taught and how it should be used to evaluate reading have led to additional ineffective practices being promoted within the reading world.

Let’s start with the fact that comprehension is a multifaceted, complex phenomenon (see pg. 1, the first quote). That means that comprehension is more than having students decode a passage and then use their listening comprehension to understand what they read. It is much more complex than that. I’ll start by making you aware of Duke and Cartright’s Active View of reading LINK.

When I give professional development on this model with teachers, I point out that it was adapted from Scarborough’s Rope. This is science at its best, science building on previous research and adding new insights. Here are highlights from a video created by P.D. Pearson that explains the conclusions reached by P.D. Pearson, Alexandria Ward, and Nell Duke about the Science of Reading Comprehension. LINK

• Word Recognition and Comprehension instruction is not a zero-sum game:

• Duke, Pearson and Ward have created a layered model of effective reading comprehension instruction.

• It is important that comprehension instruction begins early. My take- I agree that young readers should be taught to monitor reading comprehension from the very beginning. There is substantial research about early childhood that demonstrates they can and should do this.

• The processes readers use vary depending on the kind of text they are reading. My take: learning about text structure is very important for the students’ ability to understand text.

• Foundational Reading Skills are necessary BUT NOT SUFFICIENT. Pearson cites several meta-analyses demonstrating this, including the NRP analysis. My take- Just providing students with background knowledge is not enough.

Later in the presentation he goes on to cite Scanlon’s work as one example of what else is needed.  

Now that we have looked at what Pearson et al. have said about comprehension, let’s turn to what is being said about reading comprehension on social media. I call this the social media version of SOR. I have been quite critical of that version. One of the many problems with this brand of SOR is its reliance on dichotomous thinking. It’s US against THEM. This leads each side to use straw-man versions of the other and ignore the many good things each side is saying. Here is an example of what one critic says about this version of SOR. The critic is Shanahan. That may come as a surprise since many consider Shanahan one of the most important figures in what I call the research-based Science of Reading movement. Here is the post. I think the post has a particularly clever title.

Let’s look at some key conclusions from Shanahan’s post:

Unfortunately, many of the “Social Media SOR advocates” have failed to heed Dr. Shanahan’s research-based advice. Shanahan clearly thinks that limiting strategy instruction to two weeks is inappropriate. Yet some social media folks routinely advocate providing too little comprehension instruction or, in some cases, none. That is the kind of thing that happens when you view things as a dichotomy (us/them thinking, winner-takes-all) rather than taking a nuanced view. A nuanced view acknowledges the fact that sometimes the “other side” may have something worth considering.

When providing professional development to teachers about teaching comprehension, I make the point that simply naming the strategy, or naming the steps in the strategy, is not enough. You must teach in a way that leads the student to use the strategy. You must monitor whether or not that is actually happening . This concludes my section on comprehension.

Now, let’s get into my final conclusions and overall takeaways.

It takes more than synthetic phonics to make a good reading program. It also takes making sure students learn and are allowed to use the kind of phonics that works best for them.  LINK.

There are forms of teaching phonics whose effect sizes are larger than those of synthetic phonics. So teachers must be allowed to learn about and use more than just that form of synthetic phonics. Consider the information that Dr. Tim Rasinski provided during his Lit Con 2025 Keynote address. The part marked with the red arrow shows the effect size for word recognition.

First, this slide demonstrates that the decoding method (e.g., repeated readings) has a larger effect size than synthetic phonics. In part one of this blog post series, I suggested that these other methods be used IN ADDITION TO, not as A REPLACEMENT FOR, synthetic phonics.

Second, this slide demonstrates that there is much more to developing a high-quality reading instruction curriculum than simply including synthetic phonics. I strongly recommend that those creating reading curricula take a hard look at all practices with large effect sizes.

I decided to end this piece with language that first caught my attention in a slide included in an article by Leah Mermelstein titled Scalpel or Axe: Rethinking How We Teach Writing. That slide introduces the full context of her argument—one focused on instructional precision rather than complete overhauls to practice.

Leah is quoting Angela Stockman, whose words are doing the intellectual work I am responding to here.

Both the ideas and language are best understood in the context of the full piece, which is worth reading: LINK.

What Angela articulates—and what Leah applies—extends meaningfully to both reading and writing instruction..

Dr. Sam

The guy in the middle, taking flak from all sides!

©2026

It’s Time to Empower Teachers by giving them access to ALL the tools they need to support their students’ literacy development. This can and should be done within each district’s curriculum.

By Dr Sam Bommarito

For those of you who are new to my blog, here is a little background about me and the blog. I have been in education for nearly 5 decades. I have taught every grade from kindergarten through graduate school. I have worn many hats during my career, including high school social studies teacher, Title I reading specialist, Title I staff developer, Keynote Speaker,  and national reading consultant. Of all the hats I’ve worn, the one that fits me best is that of a reading teacher. It is in that role that I want to speak to you, teacher to teacher. I want to offer advice on improving literacy instruction nationwide. Here is that advice in a nutshell:

“Local districts should be allowed to empower teachers by giving access to and training in ALL the tools they need to help their students’ literacy development.”

Creative Commons JPG

Let’s investigate why I am taking this position. First and foremost, districts know their kids the best. In any given state, the population served by one district differs from that of another, and those differences are often profound. One-size-fits-all plans fail to account for the needs of children in each district. One thing I’ve noticed lately is that many districts are hiring consultants to design and implement programs. I follow several such consultants. One interesting thing is that there was a consultant with a strong background in writing and in writing workshops. You would expect that the consultant would recommend that the district adopt a writing workshop. She did not. As she took the pulse of the district by meeting with teachers and administrators, she felt the learning environment was not ready for using the writing workshop. She takes a nuanced view and firmly believes in guiding clients on a path that starts from where they are and builds on that foundation.

Some districts seek a comprehensive package and adopt it as their curriculum. The better approach is to develop an overall curriculum and then identify materials that support it.

Many districts find out the hard way that there is no magic bullet. Consider this report on that topic LINK.

A simple Google search on the effectiveness of synthetic phonics in England, where such an approach has been mandated for many years, shows that it is not working as the SOR proponents claim on social media.

Here are the links to each of those studies in the order they appear in the screen capture.

LINK  LINK  LINK , LINK

In addition, see the extensive work of both Dr.  P. L. Thomas and Dr. Andy Johnson. Both have well-researched books on this issue available on their websites. They have both criticized SOR proponents. They both have extensive peer-reviewed research to back up those criticisms. Lest the reader think that I am now going to do some SOR bashing, suggesting that we ignore SOR, that is not where this conversation is going. Before getting into my analysis of the source of the current literacy problems, I want to explore the current state of the field a little further.

Reports about teachers currently in the field are anything but encouraging. Consider this news release from February 2025 from the University of Missouri. It indicates that nearly 78 percent of the 500 teachers surveyed have considered quitting, with more experienced teachers more likely to quit. The release is based on a study published in The School Journal of Mental Health.  LINK to press release. LINK to study.

Many of my regular readers are teachers, and they report that they are now being forced to use ineffective programs that do not always meet their students’ needs, rather than the ones they had been using quite successfully. This was done in the name of The Science of Reading. There are currently laws being passed to ban the use of what have been called “ineffective methods, ineffective programs”. What prompted that belief? That belief emerged from a multi-year debate on social media. Here is an open-source article recently published in the Reading Research Quarterly. It analyzes some of what has been happening. The next two screen captures are from that article. To read the full open-source article, which includes a substantial use of peer-reviewed research, please use the LINK provided by the ILA’s Wiley Library. The library allows you to download a PDF of the full RRQ article.

Again, in a nutshell, because the SOR advocates sought to simplify, the result was too often oversimplification that created a binary discussion: good (pro-SOR) vs. bad (non-SOR). I find that Binary discussions often result in the use of straw men (portraying the other side at its worst and ignoring the strengths of the other side’s position). This created what I came to call the “Social Media Version of SOR”. This also created the belief among many that all this was now settled science, and that what remained was to codify into law the practices promoted by the “Social Media Version” of SOR.

I hope that by now the reader has reached a conclusion similar to mine. The Social Media version of SOR is not ready for codification. Add to that the lackluster performance of SOR. It raises scores by retaining students and then teaching decoding using the tests of decoding to prove how great the program is. HOWEVER, when tests that include a substantial upper-comprehension component are used the magical effect of SOR programs often disappear. Again, see the works of P.L. Thomas and Andy Johnson for detailed research-based criticism. One of the things Andy Johnson points out is that the Social Media folks misrepresent the NRP. See his podcast on that point LINK.   

* There is one more concern that I have. That is, the current debate on social media has taken a very unscientific turn. When you look at what people call the “hard sciences”, what happens is that when new data comes along casting doubt on the overall theories, those scientists alter their theories to fit the new data. That is not what is happening in the great debate on social media. Because the views are dichotomous, my idea vs your idea, the Social Media folks are systematically discounting and/or discrediting any methods that don’t fit their model. For example, when a local district was able to get the best scores in the state, the state board still denied the use of their program because it used elements of the three-cueing system LINK. The three-cuing system is not meant to be a teaching model; it is an evaluation model, and implementing that evaluation goes beyond just using the three cues, which is a source of great contention within the debate. However, the fact remains that the district was denied access to its program, even though it had the state’s best reading achievement scores. . There are multiple examples of this happening and readers are welcome to add to this list).

*Reading Recovery has a large research base spanning many years that demonstrates its success with many (NOT ALL) students. Despite that, the social media folks discount and discredit the evidence of its success. In my interview with Billy Mollasso Literacy Council of North America (LCNA) LINK, he outlines the evidence for its success and points out that the study claiming to show that success is not maintained over time was found to have a flawed design. In an interesting twist of fate, at the conference where the study was first introduced, when the folks holding the conference were asked what methods they would use, they said they would use Reading Recovery.

*The Social Media folks have not demonstrated the answers to two important questions about the teaching of phonics. How much time is enough time to get the job done for most students? Teachers are reporting that by the time they implement some of the more popular programs, there is literally no time for anything else. Alternate forms of phonics instruction have emerged in the SOR world, most notably EBLI’s approach. By the way, it is one that I often recommend when working with schools. The other question cuts to the heart of my 5-year quest to find common ground using common sense. That is the question of WHAT FORM of phonics best suits the child you are working with. One plausible answer is that the swinging pendulum can be explained by the fact that “all or nothing” solutions are applied. So you MUST use this phonics approach and only this phonics approach. When it becomes apparent that the new method isn’t working for everyone, the result is a total shift to one of the other methods. By the way, it eventually becomes apparent that the new new method is also failing some students. The pendulum swings again. My solution is to allow districts to provide a range of phonics approaches, train teachers in them and deliver them within their Tier system. That would effectively stop the pendulum in the middle.

*The social media folks have consistently ignored the fact that NAEP data indicate reading scores have been flat for decades. If that is the case, how can they possibly justify the claim that “balanced literacy” is the cause of the reading crisis? If it is, wouldn’t scores have dropped after its introduction? Again, looking at ALL the national data, the scores have remained flat. By the way, the term “balanced literacy” has no widely agreed-upon meaning, indicating that this is yet another example of the Social Media SOR folks using straw man arguments. In addition to Thomas and Johnson, see George Hruby’s information about this point.  The link provided here is to the first of a multi-part series by Hruby.

The social Media version of SOR is truly “not ready for prime time”. Instead of taking what they can learn from the “other sides,” and using it, they take a my-way-or-the-highway stance. That despite the fact they have never demonstrated that synthetic phonics works with MOST kids MOST of the time. Add to that the fact that these laws strip away power that properly belongs to districts, and I think you’ll agree that states need to consider a different path for improving literacy.

My current analysis has focused almost exclusively on the issue of teaching phonics. What I first proposed 5 years ago is that because there are several approaches to teaching phonics, not just one, that is what has happened over the years, we have not always provided students the phonics instruction that fits their needs. Some students can succeed with any of the approaches. Some students really need Synthetic Phonics. Some students really need Analytic Phonics or other phonics methods. When synthetic phonics is the only phonics taught and supported, kids who need alternate methods fail, and folks notice. They begin overemphasizing one of those other approaches, and the pendulum swings. I’ve seen that happen several times during my time in education. As long as we treat the issue of teaching phonics as a dichotomy, something the social media version of SOR clearly does, we are doomed to have more pendulum swings. The problem is not just limited to phonics alone (more about that in future blogs)

This brings me back to my opening point:

“Local districts should be allowed to empower teachers by giving access to and training in ALL the tools they need to help their students’ literacy development.”

Next week, I will explore the problems created by the Social Media version of SOR and how to deal with the issue of comprehension. I’ll also look at the ideas of two major figures in the SOR world who have been critical of some of the developments on social media. Keep in mind that, as a centrist, I believe we should be drawing research-based practices from both sides (all sides?). I’ll talk about an idea I got when interviewing P.D. Pearson. Instead of taking sides, we should be taking positions. More about that next week.

Dr. Sam

Happy Reading and Writing.

The guy in the middle is taking flak from both sides.

Copyright 2026 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.

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTS

Beginning next week, I will be doing a SHORT Read All About in Post each week, suggesting things to look at to stay abreast of the ever-changing world of literacy.

I’m also in the process of lining up several interviews with literacy folks from all sides.

I also want to thank Ann Kay from Rock and Roll Reading for her patience. Because I needed to split this blog entry into two parts, I’ll delay posting her interview until the week after next.

Please be aware that this blog entry will serve as the basis for two upcoming presentations I am preparing. One is the Keynote Address for the Maryland ILA conference in March LINK, and the other is my presentation for the on-demand session for the Literacy Council of North America (LCNA)LINK

Minda Marshall from South Africa Considers the Best Ways to Improve Reading Comprehension

An Interview by Dr. Sam Bommarito ©2025

As my regular readers already know, I am a retired reading teacher. I hold a doctorate in reading. In my 40-plus years as an educator, I’ve taught every grade from K through Graduate School. For the past six years, I’ve been writing a blog promoting a centrist point of view. I try to follow P.D. Pearson’s advice that folks should not take sides in the reading wars. Instead, they should take positions (see 24:31 in my earlier interview with Dr. Pearson). Accordingly, I’ve tried to talk to people from many perspectives within the literacy world. My goal has been to help them clarify their ideas and share them with others. I hope that doing so can result in civil discourse among folks in the reading world. Such discourse includes avoiding the use of strawmen, that is, presenting incomplete or inaccurate explanations of what the “other side” is saying. I hope that by listening to and understanding what the “other side” is saying, common ground can emerge. This could give teachers the ability to select research-based materials and practices that will help their children. Those selections would be carried out within the confines of their district’s literacy curriculum.

The bottom line- Teachers should be empowered to use evidence-based practices regardless of which side promotes them.

From time to time, readers ask me for advice on certain issues. That happened recently when I was contacted by one of my followers. Her name is Minda Marshall. Minda provides professional development coaching for teachers in South Africa. She was especially concerned that her 3^rd– and 4th-grade teachers were not seeing satisfactory progress in their students’ reading, especially in developing reading comprehension. What follows is Minda’s biography and an interview I conducted with her, sharing the interventions I think she could adopt to use with her teachers. After sharing those with you, I will discuss some interesting developments that have arisen from the interview. Some of my colleagues and I will conduct the teachers’ in-service on techniques developed by Dr. Tim Rasinki. It will also include the use of Mary Jo Fresch’s The Phonics Handbook as a resource to equip teachers with the phonics knowledge they need to deliver instruction. There will be more about that in the conclusions section of this blog.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION- Taken from her LinkedIn page.

Link to the interview. Use these talking points and questions to identify sections of the video that are most interesting to you.

Conclusions and looking to the future.

I’m very excited about the prospect of teaching teachers from South Africa to implement the ideas of folks like Rasinski, Harrison and Fresch. Stay tuned. There will be a lot to talk about in the upcoming year. Maybe there is still hope that we can use common sense to find some common ground among researchers. Dare to dream!

Dr. Sam (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. Copyrighted materials from Minda Marshall were used with permission.

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.