Key takeaway from what I said at a conference in Ottawa this week: We should empower teachers to teach the Science of Reading: A blog entry by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Picture of Ottawa University taken by S. Bommarito
while on the Rideau Canal Tour
Before beginning this entry, I need to make some clarifications and acknowledgments. The acknowledgment is to Doctor Dee Tadock and Rhoda Stone. For the last few decades, they have run a very successful tutoring company. They invited me to join them at the annual Piaget Conference. It was held at the University of Ottawa. The University of Ottawa is quite large. It has an enrollment of over 48000 students. It has a staff of approximately 1500 well-published faculty and researchers. It is one of the most prestigious universities in the world. I want to thank Rhonda and Dee for the invitation and for covering the cost of my trip to the conference.
The main reason for my invitation was that they wanted me to talk to the researchers attending their session and make them aware of a current movement in both the United States and Canada to ban all constructivist-based approaches to teaching reading effectively. Rhonda and Dee’s tutoring methods are clearly rooted in Piaget’s work. That means their approach is clearly constructivist. That means their company has been targeted in attempts to prevent them from providing the services children need. So now we are ready to begin telling the tale of what led up to the conference, what happened at this conference and why I said what I said.
The tale began when Rhonda contacted me through my blog. Let me tell you a little bit about me and my blog. I have been a teacher and a teacher of teachers for over 4 decades. I’ve taught every grade, kindergarten through graduate school.
I am famous for my hats. I’ve worn many hats over the years. But the one that fits me best is that of a reading teacher.
To search for common ground, I encourage folks to discuss areas of agreement first.

Argument vs. Debate- What Scientists do
See the screen content of the YouTube video below.

Use the link to listen to the video directly
It only takes two minutes
WATCH THIS VIDEO LIVE: LINK
This video clearly explains the difference between a debate and an argument. SCIENTISTS SHOULD ARGUE, NOT DEBATE. Debates lead to polarized positions. Polarized positions lead all sides to use straw-man versions of their competitors. This can and does lead to the spread of misinformation and disinformation. The fact that social media debates promote polarized views has been documented.

Here is a link to that study LINK. It is an open-access article.
One tactic used on social media by folks pushing for the exclusive use of their approach over all others is to discount or discredit competitors’ programs by challenging the validity of their findings. One example is the claim that gains from Reading Recovery don’t stick. That claim is mainly based on one study. That study was challenged on the day it came out because it had an unusually high attrition rate. In addition, since RR has been conducted worldwide, many studies contradict this study’s findings. Here is a blog post I made about this topic.

Especially note Susan Vincent’s observation that RR is a SHORT-TERM intervention designed to catch students up enough to benefit from the district’s curriculum. Where that is the case, the gains stick. In addition, there is substantial evidence of RR’s success. See the RR blog site for links to such information.
LINK to the blogpost.

During the interview, Dr. Tadlock noted that her program was among the first to fall victim to the tactic of discounting and discrediting research. Claims were made that the results Dr. Tadlock reported over several years were impossible. Effectively, this charged her with falsifying data.
There are three big takeaways from all the preceding about ReadRight’s information:
- Given Read Right’s great success over decades of use, it is important that the claims that ReadRight’s reported results were impossible be explored. I don’t think they were faked. But I’m not an expert in research. So I have contacted a couple of leading experts in the field about that issue. I’ll let you know how that turns out.
- Dr. Tadlock discovered many new techniques for teaching reading before some of the other major leaders in the field. She deserves credit for that.
- Given Read Right’s success, educators and administrators should consider including it in their districts’ reading programs. I think they could start with services for students who have been retained and for students identified with major reading problems, including Dyslexic students (all ages).
For more information, please email Dee at this address: deet@readright.com
A note from me to the folks in Canada. What I want to say is WOW! You guys ROCK!!!

Two of the five days we spent in Canada were spent at the conference itself. The other three were spent as tourists. My wife came along for this trip. We enjoy traveling together. Because I sometimes need handicapped access to things, she helps with that. Like all tourists, we ended up lost a couple of times. To get handicapped access to the boat tour we took, you have to go to a certain pier. To get to that pier, you need to go to the middle parking garage at the museum. Unfortunately, we did not realize that there are three parking garages associated with the museum. We went to the wrong one.
When we got there, we found we couldn’t get the scooter I use to get around in because the only way out of this garage was by stairs. A Canadian gentleman in the parking garage noticed our dilemma. He showed us the way out and got us into the museum building, where we were able to get a wheelchair. He called the right people and arranged for us to take a later tour. That took up the better part of an hour of his time. Showing kindness and helping seem to be traits of Canadians. For instance, in traffic, you signal to move over, they let you in. Try that in New York.
Another tour we took was of the Parliament building. If you’re ever in Ottawa, that should be the first thing to see. We visited Parliament on a day when we could see it in session. I was impressed with what I saw. Before, I was a reading teacher. I was a social studies teacher for five years. I also served 2 terms as the student body president at my university. So I’m very familiar with models of how government works. What I have to say is this. The Canadian Parliament is an excellent example of how legislatures in a democracy should work. There was disagreement among Members of Parliament. But there was also decorum. They knew how to agree to disagree. That is an important skill for everyone to learn.
Final Thoughts:
It ispossible for us to address our current reading problems. What it takes is to first talk about what we agree on, so each side can gain insight into the other’s thinking. When we get to the areas of disagreement, we should argue, NOT DEBATE. See my earlier explanation of Dr. Tyson’s view. We should remember that science is written in xerox, not stone. We should be willing to try research methods from all sides and use the 3-tier system to match the right methods to the right child. Dare to dream!












































