Dr. Sam is upgrading the blog site this week- The regular blog returns next week
This week, I’m getting the blog site ready so that I can add a new feature. The working title for that feature is Dr. Sam’s Common-Sense/Common Ground Minutes. These will be short hot-topic videos discussing key literacy issues. The regular blog will continue as always, but there will be a special page on the blog to house these short videos. I’m hoping to have the first one ready by next week.
On the topic of the regular blog continuing, I have two important interviews coming up. One is with Laura Robb, Tim Rasinski and David Harrison. It is about their new book, Promote Reading Gains with Differentiated Instruction. The interview is already complete. It will be posted as soon as the book is ready for sale.
The other upcoming interview will be with Ken Nesbitt. It will be about his wonderful children’s poetry site and the many resources available at the site. So- lots of good things coming up.
By the way, Bruce Hewitt’s proposal for ending the reading wars is generating a lot of interest on SPELLtalk. If you missed my interview with him last week, here is the LINK. Part of the reason for creating the videos around using common sense to find common ground is aimed at achieving the day when there are no sides.
Until next week, this is Dr. Sam signing off.
Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the center taking flak from all sides)
Copyright 2023 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.
Dr. Sam Bommarito interviews Bruce Howlett, author of Sparking the Reading Shift, about a plan to end the reading wars.
In the spirit of bringing in voices and ideas from all sides, I recently conducted this interview with Bruce Howlett from Sparking the Reading Shift. Bruce and his co-author, Dr. Caitlin Howlett, have drawn up a rather complete and ambitious plan to end the reading wars. I find this plan intriguing because it proposes using ideas from all sides and focuses on successful strategies rather than a single one-size-fits-all plan. While I may not agree with every point, I do find that their proposal is one that should give us all hope for finding common ground in what has so far been the endless reading wars. The Howlett’s work has attracted the attention of Jan Wasowicz, founder and CEO of Learning by Design. Their plan appeared in this week’s posts on Spell-Talk. Please see a screen capture of Jan’s letter below:
Here is Bruce’s Biography. It is taken from his website LINK.
These are the highlights of the interview. The interview was conducted in advance of the publication of the article. I timed the interview posting to come immediately after the article’s publication. In case you want to jump to a particular topic in the interview, the highlights are time-stamped.
Dr. Sam’s reflections & some upcoming events and posts
As I mentioned last week, I’ve interviewed several different literacy leaders from several different perspectives. This includes last week’s interview with Marnie Ginsberg, Ph.D. the Founder and CEO of Reading Simplified LINK, and an interview of Nora Chahbazi and her speech first instructional system LINK. Other interviews included Denise Ritchie and her work at the THRASS institute LINK, Jan Richardson, and her work with Guided Reading LINK, LINK and Penny Slater & Kathy Roe and their work at HFL Education which adapts the work of Tim Rasinski in teaching prosody LINK. That is only a partial list of literacy leaders I have talked to. What all these leaders have in common is that they have created research-based ways to help children learn the decoding skills they need and do that in a way that also promotes comprehension. What I like most about Chris’s ideas from this current interview is his statement to “exclude nothing” (16:13 on the video). Because Chris came from a background of working in a building that included both OG and RR, he had direct experience in working with ideas from all sides. Using ideas from all sides to implement reading programs has been a constant theme in my own writing on this topic. In that sense, Bruce and I are kindred spirits. I truly believe the path to ending the reading wars lies not in one side or the other declaring victory, but rather it lies in all sides showing a willingness to use the best of all worlds, regardless of whose particular world the research-based practices come from.
I have been championing the idea of avoiding the dichotomies often associated with discussions about the teaching of reading and replacing that dichotomous thinking with a search for common ground LINK, LINK, LINK. I think if you look carefully at the work of the folks I talk about in the paragraph above, there really is a great deal of common ground in what they propose. There are many things that teachers can adapt and start to use in their own teaching. I’ve long advocated having more talk and less arguing. That means that all sides must avoid using straw man versions of the other sides. I wrote an article for Literacy Today on that very point, LINK. Perhaps Bruce’s post can become the spark that marks the beginning of the end of the reading wars.
In one of my earlier blogs, I wrote about Amanda Goodwin and the insights she developed when working on the two special issues of the Reading Research Quarterly. I hope we can follow the example set by her in that article LINK. Those two special issues included several peer-reviewed research articles and ideas from several different perspectives LINK. In her article, Amanda described how, in the process of peer review, researchers who at first viewed themselves in different camps found themselves shifting more to the center:
“Some researchers probably started out thinking they were in different camps, but during the editing process, that changed. You know, in an academic journal like RRQ, we ask experts to review each article and give the authors anonymous feedback. A lot of them pushed the authors to say more about the gap between research and practice and to consider differing perspectives. And when they revised their articles, those researchers who started out in separate camps seemed to move more to the center and acknowledge and welcome other views. So, overall, I’d say that the experts agreed that it’s valuable to conduct various kinds of scientific research that aims to better understand and meet children’s complex and varied needs — not to insist that there’s a single, “one best” way to teach reading.”
I‘ll end with that thought from Amanda. “… experts agreed that it‘s valuable to conduct various kinds of scientific research that aims to better understand and meet children‘s complex and varied needs — not to insist that there‘s a single, ‘one best’ way to teach reading.“ Perhaps models like Bruces, will help us operationalize how we can all use common sense to find the common ground in the reading wars. The kids deserve that!
Happy Reading and Writing.
Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)
Copyright 2023 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.
Dr. Sam Bommarito interviews Marnie Ginsberg, Ph.D. the Founder and CEO of Reading Simplified
I’ve spent the summer looking at various ideas about how to best teach reading. This was done in the spirit of trying to find some common ground and common practices in what some have called The Reading Wars. One of my regular followers suggested I investigate the ideas and work of Dr. Marnie Ginsberg. I’m very glad he did. This interview will give my readers a treasure trove of ideas, including many that are “ready to use for next Monday’s class”. Let’s start by learning a little about Dr. Ginsberg and what she is doing.
Marnie Ginsberg, Ph.D., is the Founder and CEO of Reading Simplified.
In 1999, Marnie searched high and low for answers to the question, “How do you teach reading quickly?”. She found lots of conflicting advice and theories. Overwhelming! She finally ran across ideas that made sense. Before and after school, she tutored two boys in her class who originally were below the 1st-grade level, and their achievement jumped ahead to the middle of 3rd grade!. Armed with this early success between 2013 and 2015, Marnie developed K-5 sets of student materials and training videos for a national, non-profit mentoring organization. Then she began Reading Simplified, which has had over 150,000 email readers enjoy their free trainings and resources, as well as the training and curriculum inside the paid Reading Simplified Academy, which has served over 14,000 teachers and parents. So, as you can tell, many children have been reached over the years with instruction that yields much more rapid achievement gains than mainstream approaches.
This biography is based on highlights from the “Our Story So Far” post on her website. For more details about Marnie and her program, use thisLINK.
These are highlights of the interview. In case you want to jump to a particular topic, the highlights are time-stamped.
Switch It game: Integrate-don’t-isolate-A child learning 13 letter sounds and advancing in PA in 5 days with just eight min. of Switch It per day: LINK
Access to Marnie’s Timeline of Research: Follow the directions at this LINK to download the full timeline pictured below. Each item on the timeline links to the research described. BTW- in addition to these well-chosen pieces, I would suggest readers also examine the work of Duke and Scanlon.
Marnie’s podcast and the blog on Set for VariabilityLINK.
Dr. Sam’s reflections & some upcoming events and posts
Dr. Ginsberg ‘s work can be added to several projects I’ve done interviews about, including Nora Chahbazi and her speech first instructional system LINK, Denise Ritchie and her work at the THRASS institute LINK, Jan Richardson, and her work with Guided Reading LINK, LINK and Penny Slater & Kathy Roe and their work at HFL Education which adapts the work of Tim Rasinski in teaching prosody. LINK. What all these folks have in common is that they have created research-based ways to help children learn the decoding skills they need and do that in a way that also promotes comprehension. Next week, I’ll be posting my interview with Bruce Hewitt LINK about his upcoming piece which is scheduled to appear in Spell Talk. The name of that post is “Our Choice: Rapidly Translate, Evaluate and Adopt Innovative Literacy Methods or Prolong the Reading Wars.” That upcoming post outlines his proposal to effectively end the reading wars by using ideas and practices from all sides in order to create and implement effective practices for the teaching of reading. I think you will find the interview about his ideas quite interesting.
I have been championing the idea of avoiding the dichotomies often associated with discussions about the teaching of reading and replacing that dichotomous thinking with a search for common ground LINK, LINK, LINK. I think if you look carefully at the work of the folks I talk about in the paragraph above, there really is a great deal of common ground in what they propose to do. There are many things teachers can adapt and start to use in their own teaching. By the way, Dr. Ginsberg ‘s ideas add many new things for teachers to consider, and I want to thank her for sharing those resources. So, until next week, this is Dr. Sam, signing off.
Happy Reading and Writing.
Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)
Copyright 2023 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.
P.S. 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.
BREAKING NEWS: Today Lucy Calkins launched her new website; please look at her ideas on how to rebalance literacy. LINK
Pushing back on the SOR Legislation Currently Sweeping the Nation: Looking at Things from a Centrist Perspective by Dr. Sam Bommarito
• If you overdo phonics (code emphasis) & underdo comprehension (meaning emphasis), you will get word callers
• If you overdo comprehension (meaning emphasis) & underdo phonics (code emphasis), you will get word guessers.
• If you balance your phonics and comprehension instruction, you will get readers.
The above heading summarizes the heart of what I have come to call the centrist position around literacy LINK, LINK. For decades, the issue of how to teach reading has turned into a swinging pendulum. We’ve gone through eras of meaning emphasis vs. code emphasis and even brief periods of phonics vs. no phonics. The net result has been what Frank Smith once called the endless debate in reading. There have been many attempts to settle things once and for all. Often, those attempts have resulted in major shifts that end up helping some children but not others. Many of those shifts have resulted in spending millions of dollars with very little in the way of improvement in reading. Take the case of the Reading First program, a program that is clearly a code-emphasis approach. The following is taken from the Executive Summary of Reading FirstLINK:
“The findings presented in this report are generally consistent with findings presented in the study’s Interim Report, which found statistically significant impacts on instructional time spent on the five essential components of reading instruction promoted by the program (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension) in grades one and two, and which found no statistically significant impact on reading comprehension as measured by the SAT 10.” (The bolding is mine)
My conclusion: Code emphasis approaches tend to show gains in decoding abilities but not comprehension.
Meaning emphasis approaches also have had problems. They tend to show gains in comprehension and critical thinking, But the charge is often made that some students using them are not learning their decoding skills. LINK. The proposed solution to this problem is to teach the students phonics, specifically synthetic phonics LINK. Despite claims that this solution uses all five of the pillars of instruction, as you will see in the upcoming analysis, code emphasis approaches like those being mandated under some of the new state laws have had problems demonstrating real gains in comprehension. In addition, the proposed solutions fail to deal with the fact phonics needs to be taught in the context of a total reading/language arts program LINK. Another issue is that there is more than one kind of phonics LINK. Limiting teacher training to only learning about one kind, synthetic phonics, is a key weakness of this approach.
My conclusion: Both extremes, code emphasis and meaning emphasis, don’t do very well in scaffolding children into becoming readers, i.e., students who can decode and make meaning out of what they decode. Why do the two extremes fail? There is a simple reason:
What works with one child doesn’t always work with another. Different children need different kinds of instruction. Taking one-size-fits-all approaches guarantees that there will always be some children who won’t be helped.
The problem with scaffolding children in decoding is that we sometimes fail to match the child with the kind of phonics instruction they need. That happened to Dyslexic children when the programs of the day using meaning emphasis failed to give them access to the synthetic phonics methods they needed. Mismatches in the kind of instruction needed are still happening now to many children who can decode but can’t remember or make meaning of what they decoded. Word Callers are the neglected children of the current debate about reading methods LINK. For anyone thinking that is not a significant problem, please look at this screen capture for P.D. Pearson’s video on the topic, where he cites a study by Koon Foorman and Galloway showing that 1/3 of the students who did not pass the third-grade state test could decode. LINK:
Today, we are in danger of taking part in yet another swing of the pendulum. Some folks have claimed they finally have the one and only answer that will fit all children. They are again championing a point of view that fits the definition of a code-emphasis approach. They claim to have found methods that work with every child. The claims extend to the point that their point of view about teaching reading has risen to the level of “settled science.” The problem is that this is not the first time such claims have been made. Please listen to this short video from Dr. George Hruby for an entertaining yet informative post that makes this point emphatically. The name of the video is What the Phonics is the Science of Reading. You’ll see that much of what is being offered up today is, in reality, old wine in new bottles. We’ve been down this path already, and that path leads to a very expensive dead end.
Proposed Legislation Exploring Some Myths and Realities:
Let’s examine some myths and realities around the claims made by Science of Reading proponents of the current round of SOR legislation.
MYTH– Training teachers in LTRS (or similar programs) will solve a significant number of the reading problems of our children.
REALITY– The research around such programs shows otherwise:
Training teachers in letter-sound relations improve teacher’s letter-sound knowledge and use of structured teaching. IT DOES NOT IMPROVE STUDENT TEST SCORES. So, says LTRS’s own research (and we can expect similar results from other programs as well; none of them have demonstrated improved student test scores in comprehension). Consider what Racheal Gabrial had to say on this subject.
Link to the LTRS research: LINK. The results of the research cited by Gabriel align completely with the findings of other research studies showing that LTRS training does not improve student reading scores and that other more promising ways of teacher sound-symbol relations have emerged LINK.
Myth: Proponents of SOR legislation claim that the failure of balanced literacy caused a reading crisis. They also claim the methods they champion greatly improve reading scores, alluding to things like the “Mississippi Miracle” to show they have found a much better way.
The Realities: There are definite problems in the reading world. Reading scores have remained relatively flat over an extended period of time. Read my interview with Tom Loveless for the details LINK. Here are the points he makes in that interview.
Loveless points out the alarmist language used by SOR proponents. Their claims that 2/3 of the students in the nation are not proficient readers might lead some to believe that 2/3 of the students are reading below grade level. In fact, when using NAEP basic scores (which more closely reflect the idea of reading at or near grade level), the number changes to approximately 1/3 of the students reading below basic. On the one hand, that is far from acceptable. On the other hand, it is half what is usually reported, hence my charge that the social mediareporting is purposefully exaggerating the problem. I would add that researchers like Dr. Paul Thomas have published papers indicating that the claims about the Mississippi Miracle do not hold up under close scrutiny LINK.
I don’t want anything I’ve said to be interpreted as saying that improving teacher knowledge in sound-symbol relations isn’t an important goal. It is. Rather, I am saying that mandating ineffective programs to benefit one set of publishers over all others is not the best way to improve teacher knowledge of the application of phonics. There are less expensive, more effective alternatives to training teachers in sound-symbol relations in a way that helps them teach students about those relations and helps students actually apply that sound-symbol knowledge when they are reading. Consider the work of Tim Rasinski LINK, Heidi Mesmer LINK , or Nora Chahbazi LINK. All these folks are working on alternatives to the programs being mandated by many states. Mandating particular programs is effectively giving some publishers a monopoly. States should not be in the business of providing monopolies. State laws granting these monopolies should be changed immediately. Providing select publishers with monopolies is an ill-advised way to proceed.
There are many other problems with the SOR legislation:
SOR legislation does not adequately address comprehension problems. Many SOR advocates say comprehension comes automatically after decoding. IT DOES NOT. So says the NRP and all of Nell Duke’s work in comprehension. Comprehension strategies must be taught explicitly and learned using gradual release. Duke and others have several decades of research indicating that this is the case LINK. Even Shanahan has criticized what I’ve come to call the “background only” approach to teaching comprehension in this cleverly named blog post: The Spirit is Willingham, but the Flesh is Weak.
SOR legislation does not address the fact that research shows that teaching phonics to older children does not improve comprehension. Older children need other things. One promising intervention is including Rasinski’s use of fluency instruction. That improves both fluency and comprehension. See the results that teachers in England are getting using Rasinski’s idea LINK.
SOR legislation does not address the issue of Word Callers. Some SOR advocates claim that Word Callers do not exist or do not exist in large enough numbers to be a concern. P.D. Pearson and others have reported otherwise, as demonstrated earlier in this blog, citing the work of Coon, Foorman and Gallaway (2020) LINK.
SOR advocates discount the results that call into question the long-term benefits of programs emphasizing synthetic phonics over all else. Consider the work of Jeffery Bowers LINK. Is this discounting really justified when all the data is considered, or is this just a case of applying the “discount and discredit” tactic used by many SOR folks to call into question research that challenges their basic assumptions and findings? Careful consideration should be given to that question before making decisions around literacy issues.
The so-called SOR movement (what I call the social media version of SOR) is being promoted by social media pundits who have a vested interest in keeping the movement alive. They make their living in public relations campaigns promoting this version of SOR. The term structured literacy was created as a public relations marketing term LINK. These public relations folks are often called upon to testify before state legislators. That testimony should be treated the same way as any testimony from experts provided by lobbyists. It should not be a substitute for expert testimony from researchers in the literacy field.
I’m not saying there aren’t problems that need fixing. For instance, the years that many balance literacy advocates spent stressing analytic phonics over synthetic phonics worked for some children but not all. Too many universities included analytic phonics-based practices in their teacher education programs and downplayed or completely left out synthetic phonics. This has led to a situation where many educators today are not even aware that there are various ways to teach phonics. There is more than one way, as documented by this ILA position statement LINK. However, each of those ways can help some children. Teachers need to be versed in teaching all the forms of phonics. Training in phonics needs to be done in a way that allows teachers to scaffold children into actually using phonics as they read. District curriculum should be arranged so that every child gets the kind of phonics instruction they need. That especially means we must include synthetic phonics for children who need that form of instruction. However, that should be done in a manner that does not preclude children who thrive using other forms of phonics to have access to those forms. Care should be taken not to solve the problems of one set of children at the expense of another. The use of RTI LINK at the district level would be crucial to ensure that all children get what they need.
Mandating synthetic phonics over all else and ignoring many key pieces of research around comprehension will simply cause yet another pendulum swing. I made that point in my very first blog about this topic, a blog in which I called for a reading evolution (as opposed to a reading revolution). LINK.
As of this writing, the state Massachusetts Legislature is considering a bill inspired by the current spate of SOR legislation from around the country. As those legislators consider this bill, I hope they keep in mind that Massachusetts already has some of the best reading scores in the nation. Take care not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead, tweak the current system to ensure teachers learn about ALL the different ways to teach phonics. Since some dyslexic students need synthetic phonics over all other kinds, set up ways to ensure that that happens for them. But don’t do it in a way that strips students who flourish using other ways of teaching phonics of their access to those alternate ways. Take a long, hard look at England and what has happened when the emphasis on synthetic phonics is so large that comprehension concerns get pushed into the background LINK. Avoid the pitfalls present when student retention is used to raise reading scores LINK. Don’t let the social media pundits have control of these very important issues. Please let the “reading wars” play out fully in the research world. Let’s not move things from the research world into the everyday classroom without fully vetting them first. Above all, ensure the instruments used to test literacy fully and directly measure comprehension. Weak sister substitutes for comprehension tests should be avoided. Refer to the chart from Nell Duke’s article on advice to policymakers LINK to ensure the test being used measures everything it needs to measure.
In sum, let’s try using a centrist approach, using the best research from all sides.
Let’s try something that has never been tried in reading history. Let us try stopping the pendulum in the middle for a time, just as P.D. Pearson suggested we should LINK. Let’s follow the example set by Amanda Goodwin and the researchers involved in putting together the two special issues of the Reading Research Quarterly. These special issues provide one of the most complete collections of research on the question of how to teach reading. It includes relevant research from all sides LINK. I highly recommend that anyone who wants a good starter set of well-done research about how to teach reading begin by reviewing the collection from these two special issues.
Here is what the co-editor of RRQ, Amanda Goodwin, reported about what happened as the authors put together that collection LINK:
I’ll close with that thought. There is not one single “one best” way to teach reading. Legislation should reflect that. Legislation should allow districts to pick the research-based approaches that best serve their local population. After all, individual districts know their kids the best. State or national mandates of one-size-fits-all solutions cannot possibly fit the diverse needs of all districts. It’s time to move to the center and give districts the discretion they need to meet the needs of all their children.
Happy Reading and Writing.
Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)
Copyright 2023 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.
Some additional thoughts/resources:
When teaching about phonics, I’ve found this piece by Nell Duke and Heidie Mesmer particularly useful: LINK
One of the best pieces I’ve seen about advice to policymakers is this one by Nell Duke & Heidi Mesmer: LINK
When talking to legislators about what is needed, I’ve found the two handouts in my blog sharefolder particularly useful LINK.
Screen captures of the two documents are found below. To have working links, download them from the sharefolder.
I’m taking a break from the blog this week. It’s time for school to start, and like many of you, I am setting up my classes & push-ins for the upcoming year. The blog will resume next week with some thoughts about the SOR legislation sweeping the country. I’m also lining up future interviews with literacy leaders representing various views on literacy.
In the meantime, I hope you all have a great start to the upcoming school year. For the teachers among you, please do have a look at Tim Rasinski’s latest posting on Twitter. It features a poem saluting teachers everywhere. What a perfect way to start the new year. Find it on Tim’s Twitter feed: @TimRasinski1.
An interview of Dr. George Hruby about the Sciences of Reading PART TWO: Interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito
This is the second half of a two-part interview. For anyone who may have missed the first part, here is the introductory information about Dr. Hruby.
Some may remember when Dr. George Hruby first posted his video entitled What the Phonics is the Science of Reading. The video was an instant hit on YouTube, garnering over 12,000 views. In it, Dr. Hruby pushed back on the notion that the science around literacy instruction is settled. Instead, he makes a strong case for the existence of the Sciences of Reading (Sciences with an s). That way of looking at things counters much of the misinformation and misdirection being made by proponents of the so-called Science of Reading. As P.D. Pearson has said, the term settled science is an oxymoron. The claims by some SOR advocates that it’s all settled science are problematic at best. You’ll find more information about this video later in the blog.
Let’s fast forward to today. Dr. Hruby had so much great information to share that I decided to split our interview in half. This week I am posting the 2nd half of the interview, where he will tell us all about the YouTube video and also talk about the article he co-authored about the politicization of phonics in the United States
Here is some information about George Hruby and his background:
Here is a link to the YouTube interview:
Here are the Talking Points and Questions from the 2nd half of the interview:
Mary Howard made some wonderful notes about part two of the interview. Here is a link to those notes LINK.
As a bonus- here are her notes for part one as well. Thanks to Mary for doing these and letting me share them: LINK to part one.
Link to the YouTube Video
SEVEN KEY MOMENTS FROM THE VIDEO
Excerpt from the abstract and link to the article:
“After summarizing the politicization of phonics in the United States, we critique a legislated training course for teachers in Tennessee as representative of how a phonics-first ideology is expressed polemically for political purposes. We contrast it with a more collaboratively developed, balanced, nonlegislative approach in the previous governor’s administration.”
During the interview, Dr. Hruby details his concerns about marketing that promotes lopsided approaches to reading because they are the most lucrative thing (as opposed to things that would help kids). Is this an accurate assessment? Consider this article from the International Dyslexia Site outlining how and why they created a new term, “structured literacy,” to “sell their product.” The article’s author is a political consultant who led the adoption of advanced targeting techniques in campaigns. At the time he wrote this article, he was the president of the IDA. LINK
Is Dr. Hruby against the need to use research to guide our practices? No. Quite to the contrary, he indicates he first and foremost believes in using the science, all the sciences, all the research. I believe we’ve now come to the point where the overzealous marketing of one group’s brand of SOR has resulted in things that are hurting the literacy world. For instance, working programs are being banned LINK. The needs of many children are being ignored LINK. Information about the NAEP test scores simply does not support the stories being told in social media about the total failure of all that has come before SOR LINK. For me, all this is a clear case of going from one extreme – a very heavy emphasis on meaning-based approaches, to the other, – a very heavy emphasis on phonics-based approaches.
That is where I began this journey five years ago, calling attention to the fact that going from one extreme to another has always resulted in pendulum swings. I think Dr. Hruby echoed that sentiment during the interview. As I said in my first blog post on this topic LINK, it’s time to try something that has never been tried before in the history of reading instruction. Let’s try staying in the middle for a while.
I’ll end with this thought. NO MORE STRAWMEN FROM EITHER SIDE. When folks at the extremes use strawmen/misinformation, it means instead of the conversation focusing on folks at the center, it focuses on folks at the extremes. Let’s do our level best to stop using dichotomies. Dichotomies don’t help anyone LINK. Let’s use common sense to find some common ground. Let’s start talking more about things that we can agree on, like the need for both phonics and meaning in our literacy programs. Let’s provide each child with the direct teaching of the kind of phonics that will benefit them the most. Let’s also directly teach the kind of comprehension strategies that will benefit them the most. I’ll end with a screen capture of one time when that already happened. It is a screen capture from my blog critiquing Amanda Goodwin’s article, where she wrote about the process used during the creation of the two special editions of the Reading Research QuarterlyLINK. Those two editions provide a complete look at the Science of Reading. The quote makes the best case I’ve ever seen for taking a centrist stance. By the way, here is the link to the two issues she was talking about LINK. Those issues include ideas from all sides. That is the way it should be.
Happy Reading and Writing.
Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the center taking flak from all sides)
Copyright 2023 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.
An interview of Dr. George Hruby about the Sciences of Reading PART ONE: Interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito
Some may remember when Dr. George Hruby first posted his video entitled What the Phonics is the Science of Reading. The video was an instant hit on YouTube, garnering over 12,000 views. Here it is if you want to have a look at it. In it, Dr. Hruby pushed back on the notion that the science around literacy instruction is settled. Instead, he makes a strong case for the existence of the Sciences of Reading (Sciences with an s). That way of looking at things counters much of the misinformation and misdirection being made by proponents of the so-called Science of Reading. As P.D. Pearson has said, the term settled science is an oxymoron. The claims by some SOR advocates that it’s all settled science are problematic at best.
The video was a warm-up piece for The Literacy Research Association Conference. Normally such introductions are done in person. However, in that particular year, 2020, we were in the midst of the Covid crisis, and most conferences had gone to a remote format.
Let’s fast forward to today. Dr. Hruby had so much great information to share that I decided to split our interview in half. This week I am posting the first half. Let’s find out a little about Dr. Hruby and then find out what he shared in the first half of the interview.
Here is some information about George Hruby and his background:
Here is a link to the YouTube interview:
Here are the Talking Points and Questions from the interview:
Dr. Hruby’s slides from the presentation, with remarks:
Dr. Hruby’s Explanation of the slide:
Kentucky has been significantly above the national average in reading every year 1998-2017. This is a literacy-specific result (math scores still significantly below the national average) and is also true of 8th-grade reading scores.
This is notable because socioeconomic status is a very strong correlate to reading achievement. Kentucky is the 5th poorest (and for the first half of this chart, 4th poorest) state in the US. Yet it has remained significantly above the national mean in reading. What can we say from this? There has been no reading crisis in KY, and the investments in reading instruction that the Kentucky General Assembly has made over the past 25 years have been well-targeted. Yet scores begin to drop from 2015 forward. Why?
Dr. Hruby’s Explanation of the slide:
1 in 6 public school students in Kentucky attend school in Louisville (JCPS–Jefferson Co Public Schools). From 2015-2019, JCPS drew up an exclusive contract for PD with a local private university to provide phonics-focused early literacy training district-wide instead. Up to 3 graduate courses in phonics instruction were offered. Cost to JCPS: $1 million a year. The impact is clear. Again, this is not only a literacy-specific result, it is 4th-grade reading-specific. No similar slump in other subjects or 8th-grade reading. Those who attended the Research to Practice post-con at LRA in Tampa in 2106 may remember the associate superintendent of Hillsborough Co. Schools bragging on the great phonics training they were instituting in their schools… Baltimore, Boston, and Chicago were also all in on phonics first as well. By contrast, San Diego and Fresno Unified had switched from that to a more comprehensive and language-rich approach. They did not abandon phonics, but they extended their reading curriculum to include a heavy emphasis on language development and reading for meaning. Notably, these are majority-minority, majority-lower-income, and majority-second-language speaker districts. And they succeeded. Just saying…
My thoughts about Part One:
The preceding two slides tell a disturbing story. The good news is that for 19 years, Kentucky schools performed very well in reading, well above the national average. For those seeking evidence that the research-based professional development being carried out by the Collaborative Center was working very well, the graph says it all. Remember, the graph is based on the NAEP scores for the years in question. This information is reminiscent of the information Dr. Tom Loveless provided in his recent interview with me LINK. In that interview, Dr Loveless pointed out that the claims of a reading crisis generated by “bad teaching”, simply aren’t borne out by the NAEP data. He cited the 2022 research piece entitled A Half Century of Student Progress Nationwide: First Comprehensive Analysis Finds Broad Gains in Test Scores, with Larger Gains for Students of Color than White StudentsLINK. The story being sold by some social media pundits about the failure of balanced literacy is simply not supported by the NAEP data.
Now let’s get to the bad news. Kentucky’s scores went down in the years from 2015-9. Dr. Hruby attributes that in part to several large districts dropping the PD from the Collaborative Study and instead being in-serviced in and using a phonics-first approach. The details about that appeared in the previous section. The upshot is this: Those districts that switched to a more comprehensive and language-rich approach that includes phonics (I’ll dub those phonics plus) continued to show gains. Those that used the phonics first approach showed losses. You would think that what would happen is the legislature would buy into the phonics plus approach. But that’s not what happened. Instead, they shut down the Collaborative Center’s PD program.
I’m seeing a disturbing national trend developing. It doesn’t matter whether a program works. It only matters that a program can pass the litmus test created by the phonics first branch of the SOR movement. There is a growing movement to counter that development. See Jan Richardson’s story about Pioneer Valley Book’s program. LINK. That guest blog by Jan has garnered over 7,000 views, and people are still viewing it. That is a sign that many folks sense something is rotten in Denmark. It’s time to use some common sense. We need to judge programs by whether or not they work, rather than whether or not they pass the litmus test of the Phonics First branch of SOR. We need to look at ALL the research and ALL the sciences of reading. More about that in future blogs
NEXT WEEK:
The second half of this interview will be posted. Dr. Hruby will discuss the issues raised in his video. He will also discuss the article he recently co-authored. That article is Reinking, D., Hruby, G. G., & Risko, V. J. (2023). Legislating Phonics: Settled Science or Political Polemics? LINK. I think you will find there is a lot to unpack in Part Two of this interview. See you next week!
Happy Reading and Writing.
Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)
Copyright 2023 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.
Penny Slater & Kathy Roe talk about the amazing impact of teaching prosody: An Interview by Dr. Sam Bommarito
My regular readers know I am a huge fan of Tim Rasinski. He is one of the world’s foremost authorities on teaching reading. I always encourage my readers to become aware of his ideas LINK, LINK, LINK. This past week I had the pleasure of interviewing two teachers from England. They work for HFL Education. HFL Education is the largest school company in the UK. It provides school improvement and business support products and services that enable schools, academies, and educational settings to deliver a great education. In this interview, Penny and Kathy talk about how they used Tim Rasinski’s prosody work to help students do more than just read with their eyes. They help students to read with prosody. That means they become readers who read with their eyes, ears, mind and heart. Penny and Kathy turn the usual ideas about teaching prosody on their head. Instead of waiting for readers to become fluent before teaching prosody, they teach students prosody skills early on. They’ve found doing so has had amazing results with the student’s reading comprehension and fluency. They have seen more than 1 ½ years of growth in comprehension/fluency in just eight weeks of small group instruction.
Listen carefully to the interview to gain some of their many insights about effective ways to improve fluency and comprehension. It’s done using what is often called the missing element of reading instruction. That element is the early direct and explicit teaching of prosody.
Here is some information about Penny and Kathy and their background:
Here is a link to the YouTube interview:
Here are the Talking Points and Questions from the interview:
More information about HFL:
HFL Education is the largest school company in the UK. We are a leading provider of school improvement and business support products and services that enable schools, academies, and educational settings to deliver a great education. Homepage LINK.
Accessing Project Training:
Our next training event takes place on 2nd October 2023. This training is fully remote. Don’t worry if you cannot attend the live training webinars: a recording of the sessions will be made available to all delegates who have booked a place and will be accessible for two weeks after the live webinars have taken place.
This CPD event will provide an overview of the transformational teaching strategies skilfully woven throughout the HFL Reading Fluency Project, including modelled expressive reading, echo reading, repeated reading, performance reading, text marking, challenging text selection and modelling of comprehension skills.
About HFL Education’s Reading Fluency Project:
HFL Education’s Reading Fluency Project is designed to support struggling readers to make swift progress towards reaching age-related expectations. The transformational teaching strategies used in the project are based on a combination of well-evidenced methods, including:
This week I’ve been telling many of my literacy friends that I am blown away by the work being done in this project. One of my takeaways has to do with kids I’ve called the forgotten children of the reading debate. Those children are the Word Callers LINK, LINK. As Penny and Kathy described how many of the children they work with were reading at the beginning of the project, I thought to myself, those children from the project are classic word callers. They can read the isolated words quite accurately. But they break down when it comes to reading text that is sentence length or longer. They decode but don’t remember. Yet after doing activities like those listed below, their reading got measurably better in just eight short weeks. Here are some things the HFL program provides during small group instruction:
At conferences, I am often asked what teachers can do for the older reader who is not progressing. My answer now is to use research-based methods like HFL is using. BTW these methods work with younger children too. I also think that one size fits all/phonics first schemes don’t provide the children the skill set they need to read (instead of decode). Even after years of synthetic phonics (the flagship of the SOR fleet), many of these children in England are not reading with prosody and comprehension. That is a red flag. Perhaps beginning reading programs need to take a long hard look at HFL’s success and revise their very beginning reading programs accordingly. Perhaps it’s time to include the missing link of prosody instruction in all of our literacy programs.
In the next few weeks, I will continue to do interviews. Next week I will be interviewing Dr. George G. Hruby. His video about the Science of Reading went viral LINK. He just co-authored a journal article on the topic of legislating phonics LINK. Coming soon will be an interview with a former colleague (we taught together for almost two decades). She’s written some interesting children’s books. She loves science, and her books reflect that. I continue to prepare for my talk with P.D. Pearson. All in all, it’s going to be a very busy and productive end of the summer. So until next week:
Happy Reading and Writing.
Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)
Copyright 2023 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.
Something old/Something new: Gravity Goldberg talks about two of her many professional books- An interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito
This week it was my pleasure to talk to Gravity Goldberg about two of her professional books (hint- there are many of them to pick from). Picking just two was a formidable task. Here is how we proceeded.
Something Old: One of the books we picked was one we thought had great advice for teachers of any grade. The book’s name is Teach Like Yourself. Like many of Gravity’s books, it contains tons of useful activities and ideas that teachers can use in almost any grade. That is a handy thing to have as we get closer to the beginning of the school year.
Something New: Gravity has a brand-new book focusing on ideas for Middle School/High School teachers. The book is Active Learning:40 Teaching Methods to Engage Students in Every Class and Every Subject, Grades 6-12. Let me explain why this book was chosen as the second one to talk about.
As some of you know, I have presented at the Write to Learn conference for a number of years. I also run the Twitter account for that site. Here is a LINK. The site is not yet updated for 2024. However, we expect to set a save-the-date announcement right after the school year begins. If you want to know about speakers and when registration will begin, a link on the current site lets you sign up for our mailing list. Because of my experience with the WTL conference, I know many teachers of older children are very interested in activities that enhance literacy instruction for the older child. That is why I thought asking Gravity to talk about her new book would be a good idea. BTW, I also think any teacher of kids in grades K to 5 would be able to adapt some of the things she says about kids in the upper grades to their own students. Again, the book has many useful activities and teaching ideas teachers can use in the fall.
Here is some information about Gravity:
Here is a link to the YouTube interview:
Here are the Talking Points and Questions from the interview:
Follow Gravity on Twitter @drgravityg, @drgravitygLLC
Final Thoughts About This Interview.
In the past few weeks, I’ve been involved in several discussions about literacy on Twitter and my blog, LINK, LINK. The guest blog I posted from Jan Richardson had over 7,000 hits LINK. People are interested in the whole topic of Balanced Literacy vs SOR. Part of what I have concluded about all this is looking at literacy issues using dichotomies like that is counterproductive. Some researchers have come to similar conclusions LINK. I think a more useful use of our time would be to explore ideas from all sides and to find practical research-based ideas that all teachers can use regardless of whose “side” it comes from. It is in that spirit that I present these two books from Gravity. They contain things that have worked, things that are supported by research. I invite readers to look them over and find the ones they think are research-based and fit your kids best.
In the next few weeks, I will continue to do interviews. One of them will be with some folks from England (they live near London). Their project is called the KS2 Reading Fluency Project. Another interview will be with a former colleague (we taught together for almost two decades). She’s written some interesting children’s books. She loves science, and her books reflect that. I continue to prepare for my talk with P.D. Pearson. All in all, it’s going to be a very busy and productive rest of the summer. So until next week:
Happy Reading and Writing.
Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)
Copyright 2023 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.
This week I’m posting a Guest Blog from Dr. Jan Richardson. She gives a well-researched response to criticisms made about a webinar that she and Michele Dufresne did last December. I’ve said many times that we must use ALL the research and listen to the WHOLE STORY when making decisions around literacy issues. I want to thank Jan for allowing me to post this very informative article. Please listen to what she has to say. Dr. Sam
My Side of the Story, by Dr. Jan Richardson
On December 8, 2022, I did a webinar with Michele Dufresne on Getting the Facts Straight on Guided Reading. In response to the webinar, there have been numerous attacks from social media, seeking to convince guided reading teachers that their method of teaching reading is not aligned with reading science. Much of the criticism is based on inaccuracies (e.g., confusing Pre-A readers who don’t know letters and sounds with Emergent Readers who know their letters and sounds).
I‘ve prepared a white paper explaining in detail how my “Next Steps” approach to small group instruction aligns with reading science. In a nutshell, these are areas where we agree:
The Science of Reading (SOR) is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Children will need different kinds of instruction to meet the common goal of becoming proficient, engaged readers.
The SOR is an evolving body of research, not a reading program that can be purchased. Although many districts are searching for a “Science of Reading Program,” there is no such thing.
There is a difference between obtaining information from the media and choosing to read the research. Unfortunately, too many well-meaning reading enthusiasts simply repeat what they have heard on social media and don’t consult the research.
The term “guided reading” is used in a variety of contexts. It does not have an agreed-upon definition (Shanahan). This is my definition: During guided reading, a teacher meets with a small group of students and differentiates instruction by targeting specific learning needs, providing appropriate scaffolding, and gradually reducing support to promote independence. My lesson framework aligns with the basic tenants of effective reading instruction as described by Structured Literacy. It also explicitly teaches the key elements of reading defined by the National Reading Panel Report.
Children need to use letters and sounds to decode words.
Reading Instruction should meet a student’s needs and be based on formal and informal observations and assessments.
Guessing words is not an acceptable reading strategy. Teachers should never encourage a student to guess at a word. Children should integrate multiple sources of information to get the precise message of the author.
Phonics is essential, but not sufficient. There are several key elements that children need to learn to become proficient readers. In addition to phonics, children need instruction in decoding (the application of phonics), phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing.
Phonics should be taught explicitly and systematically. All the books I have written include a phonics scope and sequence aligned with the developmental stages supported by decades of research (Bear et al., 2019; Ehri, 2022; Ganske, 2013) and a variety of effective, engaging, and research-based procedures that explicitly teach letters, sounds, sight words, spelling patterns, inflectional endings, and morphemic units.
Decodable texts can be useful for helping students practice a phonics skill.
Orthographic mapping (forming letter-sound connections to bond the spellings, pronunciations, and meanings of words) (Ehri, 2014) helps child expand their sight word vocabulary.
The following paragraphs present my position on the use of decodable texts and the three-cueing model, two major areas where SOR extremists have attacked guided reading. My position is strongly supported by reading science research.
Decodable books
I have personally taught thousands of small group reading lessons and used a variety of instructional texts, including decodable texts, leveled books, basal stories, newspaper articles, chapters from novels, and sections from textbooks. I’ve even taught guided reading to advanced middle school readers using a chapter from a physics textbook! One of my favorite genres for guided reading is poetry. My point is you can use my small group lesson framework with any text. My framework is simply a way to integrate reading, writing, and phonics to bring about greater acceleration. It does not mandate or exclude any type of text.
The current debate about whether to use decodable texts or leveled books centers on emergent readers (reading levels A-C). Books published for emergent readers differ according to the publishing company. Some beginning books are highly patterned and repetitive; some are highly decodable. Still others use multi-criteria, which includes high-frequency words, decodable words, and meaning.
My position is similar to Shanahan’s. He writes, “I think it’s okay to use decodable texts as part of phonics instruction, but such practice should be severely limited, and even beginning readers should be reading more than decodable texts.” In another of Shanahan’s blogs on decodable texts, he says it is reasonable to use decodable texts to practice a phonics skill, but “kids are likely to be best off in classrooms that provide them with a mix of these text types rather than a steady diet of any one of them.” He goes on to say, “Personally – based on my own experiences as a primary grade teacher—I would use all of these kinds of text.”
Shanahan is critical of using predictable texts, and so am I. Predictable, patterned books offer emergent readers an opportunity to learn print concepts and simple English language structures, which supports the development of phonological and decoding skills(Scanlon & Anderson, 2020; Mesmer & Williams, 2015. However, once children control early print concepts and know the letter sounds, teachers should avoid patterned text and use decodable texts along with multi-criteria texts so the students can develop a “mental set for diversity” (Shanahan).
Although we might disagree on some aspects of decodable texts, I hope we can agree on these points presented by (Mesmer):
Use them (decodable texts) at the right developmental window, which Mesmer defines as when children are solid with the concept of a word, know all letter sounds, and are ready to decode words. She states, “I suggest that children be able to decode a simple c-v-c word prior to using decodables.”
Use after a phonics lesson to practice a target word family or sound. In my recent reading intervention program called RISE, Iwrote decodable texts for each lesson so children could practice the sight words and phonics skills that were taught in the lesson.
Do not use decodable texts exclusively. Children benefit from also using multi-criteria texts that target high-frequency words, decodability, and meaningfulness.
Pay attention to the level of decodability. There are times when highly decodable texts may be appropriate, but if the reader is having to sound out every third word, the book probably contains too many decodable words.
Know when to stop using decodable texts. Mesmer recommends ending the use of decodable texts after children can easily blend c-v-c and c-c-v-c words. Most children master this skill in the spring of kindergarten or fall/winter of first grade.
Three-cueing system(MSV)
I think we can agree that readers use multiple sources of information to make sense of print – semantics (Meaning), syntax (Structure), and graphophonics/letter-sound relationships (Visual).
Many teachers, myself included, use MSV as a tool for analyzing student errors and self-corrections. The coding helps teachers decide which sources of information students are using (and ignoring) so the teachers know how to prompt the student during reading. When a reader makes an error that ignores phonics, teachers should prompt the student to look more closely at the word, sound it out, or break it into parts. If the reader tries to sound out the word but ignores meaning, then teachers should prompt them to crosscheck the visual (phonics) with meaning. You used all the sounds, but what word would make sense? (Clay, 2016; Bates, McBride, & Richardson, 2020, Shanahan. Research has shown that teachers who prompt students to attend to the cues the students are ignoring tend to be more effective (Scanlon & Anderson, 2020). The goal is for the reader to integrate multiple sources of information to read the exact words in the text.
The current controversy surrounding the three-cues is fueled by an assumption that if children are prompted to use meaning-based strategies, they will learn to guess at unfamiliar words (Hanford, 2019, 2022). Ehri (2014) has shown that children with partial alphabetic word knowledge often use initial letters plus pictures to anticipate what a word might be. I don’t consider this guessing. It is part of the developmental process of word solving and learning. The goal, of course, is for these children to acquire more letter sound knowledge so the teacher can direct the student’s attention to using all the letters in the word for accurate word identification.
I agree with Scanlon and Anderson (2020) that children can use both meaning and visual information right from the start: “We do not view the use of context and decoding within an either/or framework, but rather encourage the interactive and confirmatory use of both code-and meaning-based strategies during word solving, within an instructional approach that is also responsive to the needs of students as they develop skill with the alphabetic code” (p. S20).
By the way, there is widespread misunderstanding among SOR proponents that the V in MSV means pictures. They suggest it is a way of encouraging children to guess at words. See Hunts Institute Virginia Education Summit, 2:50:16ff. That is totally false — yet I have heard presented numerous times.
Page 31 of the Science of Reading Defining Guide says that in order to be good citizens of a science and practice community, educators should fairly evaluate all evidence “regardless of whether the conclusions are inconsistent with your beliefs.” It also says we should “acknowledge differences and discuss them with respect and decency.” Unfortunately, I seldom see this kind of respectful debate on social media posts. I sincerely hope we can find common ground on the essentials of effective reading instruction, and when we disagree, we can do so with respect and professionalism.
Want to hear more about Jan’s ideas? Here is a link to an interview I did with her last year. LINK
Several important interviews and blog posts are lined up in the next few weeks. We will start next week with an interview with Gravity Goldberg. In addition, P.D. Pearson has agreed to be interviewed. I am working on setting up that interview late in the summer or early this fall. Until then:
Happy Reading and Writing.
Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)
Copyright 2023 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.
