Monthly Archives: February 2022

Deconstructing the “My Way or The Highway” Branch of the Science of Reading- A Centrist’s Perspective by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Deconstructing the “My Way or The Highway” Branch of the Science of Reading- A Centrist’s Perspective by Dr. Sam Bommarito

A little background about this post: Lately, I’ve been engaged in a spirited exchange with some folks I consider as “my way or the highway” advocates of the Science of Reading. I’ll be crystal clear from the outset that not all SOR folks take that position. As a centrist, I’ll also be clear that I draw on and use things many folks would call practices supported by the Science of Reading, though I prefer the term Sciences of Reading. That said- let’s talk about my concerns about what this particular group of Science of Reading advocates are saying and doing. I’ll also give my advice on how I think folks should proceed. Understand that the concerns in this post are about the “my way or the highway group,” so it is about what SOME, not ALL SOR advocates, are saying and doing. For this essay, please treat SOR as the “my way or the highway” SOR group.  

CONCERN ONE– Some folks treat things as a winner takes all dichotomy. SOR vs. Balanced Literacy/Whole Language. Things are a lot more complex than that.

Recent issues of Reading Research Quarterly have warned against treating approaches to teaching literacy as a dichotomy. I subscribe to Cambourne’s view that a Reading Quilt metaphor should replace the Reading Wars metaphor, LINK p6.  I am now going to trace to the two sides WAY back.

Inquiry instruction is the underpinning of constructivist learning approaches. It is also a key feature of analytic phonics. It has its origins in the philosophical teachings of Socrates.

Direct instruction is the underpinning of the behaviorist approaches to learning. It is the key feature of synthetic phonics. It has its origins in the philosophical teaching of Aristotle.

The two ways of teaching, constructivist vs. behaviorist, have co-existed for over two millennia without one replacing the other. I see no reason for wanting or expecting one approach to replace the other. Unfortunately, members of the SOR (MWOH) group view inquiry instruction as weak and seem to want virtually all instruction to be direct. They also embrace quantitative research exclusively and omit qualitative research entirely. Given the complex nature of what goes on in school districts, that is a problematical way to proceed. It leads them to underestimate the effect and importance of constructivist methods. I’ll have much more to say about that point in future blogs.

What makes the most sense to me is encouraging both instructional approaches and using the Art of Teaching to decide when best to use one or the other. In this era of a Global Economy, it seems that the kind of open-ended problem-solving thinking encouraged by inquiry instruction is exactly what we need to compete successfully. There is a place, a very important place, for inquiry instruction in our educational instructional practices today.

In my opinion, Balanced Literacy’s defining feature is the use of constructivist-based practices. Here are multiple examples of districts using constructivist-based practices with great success  LINK, LINK, LINK. Yet the SOR folks claim BL has failed. They do this by employing the public relations tactic of discount and discredit. Once data supporting constructivist practices is posted, they then do analyses to show the research behind them is flawed. By the way, their practices could be subjected to the same kind of discount and discredit analysis.

When considering whether to adopt SOR-inspired educational practices or BL-inspired practices, it’s not just a matter of counting studies and positions. It is a matter of looking at what the most widely used peer-review journals have concluded. Currently, journals like the Reading Research Quarterly have concluded that the SOR advocates lack a widely accepted definition of the term Dyslexia and, therefore, cannot properly screen for the condition. Currently, their screens misidentify large numbers of students. You’d never guess that listening to them as they call for the widespread adoption of their brand of SOR.   

There is another problem with the SOR claim. A simple summary of my position is as follows: before making any claim that BL has failed, the naysayers have to draw a scientific sample of districts using selected constructivist practices with fidelity. I say that the studies should focus on selected constructivist practices because the term Balanced Literacy is an umbrella term for which there is no widely accepted definition, accordingly, it would be best to look at districts using a list of selected constructivist practices, with the results of each practice reported separately.

Let me explain why drawing a sample of districts using constructivist practices is important. Naysayers say that things are not where we want them in literacy instruction. I can’t agree more. However, they then imply that the situation is completely the fault of BL. I then remind them that SOR is also part of the current literacy scene, so it has to take on some of the responsibility for the current failures. They then say that you have to look at the districts using SOR-inspired practices to judge SOR. I AGREE! But that also means you have to look at a properly drawn sample of districts using BL (selected constructivist practices) with fidelity. THEY’VE NEVER DONE THAT! Given the results about BL reported elsewhere in this blog entry, they would likely find that at least some of the constructivist practices used in BL do work. Perhaps that’s why they’ve never drawn the sample. Until they do, the claims “failed practices” and “BL is a failure” – are examples of half-truths and misdirection. It’s time we started looking at the whole truth in our discussions around instructional practices. For a further explanation of this point, go to this LINK

CONCERN TWO– Some folks use very limited views of the reading process and very limited inquiries into the research. The result is they champion some misleading and inaccurate positions. They claim that it is all settled science. IT ISN’T. Here is an excerpt from a NY Times article written by three top researchers in the field. It clearly shows there is no consensus. Here is a link to that article LINK, along with a screen capture of highlights from the article. Please read them carefully, especially the point about SOR’s tendency to overlook the common ground shared by those who draw different conclusions on the finer points of the available research.

Last year, I wrote a blog about the article entitled The Sciences of Reading LINK. There were over 10,000 views of that piece, and the two follow-up pieces LINK LINK. In addition, I interviewed P.L. Thomas about his view that Its Not Simple and Its Not Settled LINK. Based on what multiple well-credentialed researchers are saying, the bottom line is that it is not settled science. SOR folks saying otherwise employ the public relation tactics of using half-truths and misdirection. As the article says- teaching reading is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor. I say- let’s stop pretending that it is!

CONCERN THREE– Some folks are fostering ideas about teaching comprehension that are simply not supported by ALL the research. These folks look at the evidence supporting the importance of readers’ background knowledge and then jump to the CONFUSION that teaching background knowledge is all that is needed to teach comprehension. That is simply not the case.

On the one hand, virtually everyone in the literacy community knows (and has known for decades) that background knowledge is important to understanding. However, there is considerable evidence that it takes more than just background knowledge for readers to construct meaning.

Review the work of Pressley, Pearson and more recently Duke. They found that teaching reading strategies USING A GRADUAL RELEASE MODEL can and does have a significant positive impact on reading scores. There are several decades of research supporting that statement. My take is that the charge that teachers sometimes “spend too much time teaching comprehension” is best aimed at what Shanahan has called teaching comprehension skills. I can’t agree more that endless practice teaching students how to answer various comprehension questions is not particularly useful. But teaching strategies using gradual release (Shanahan’s other category about teaching comprehension) is a different story. What follows is my interpretation, not Shanahans.

Willingham talks about teaching strategies as something that can be quickly and easily done in just a few lessons. I don’t think that that analysis fits well if one is teaching strategies using gradual release. So, I agree with Willingham in that some teachers overdo the teaching of comprehension skills. I’m afraid I must disagree with his analysis that it doesn’t take much time to teach comprehension strategies.  When it comes to teaching comprehension strategies using gradual release, it takes time and lots of it. The bottom line is this- Building background knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for reading comprehension to occur. Teaching selected reading strategies using gradual release is justified, pays off handsomely, and needs to be done.

Yet when I ask SOR (MYOH) folks how they spend their time, specifically do they spend any time at all TEACHING comprehension strategies, the answers I get are evasive. They lead me to believe that most of the instructional time is being spent teaching decoding, not comprehension. I view what they seem to be doing as a huge mistake. Decoding is necessary but not sufficient for comprehension to take place. Better decoding does not automatically lead to better comprehension. We’ve known that since at least the NRP. SOR folks need to take a gradual release model’s direct systematic teaching of comprehension strategies more seriously. At the end of the day, how you spend your instructional time is a great predictor of your results. The “my way or the highway” SOR folks are really shortchanging the time they spend TEACHING comprehension. They would do well to review the seminal work of Delores Durkin in this area LINK. Perhaps we need some new studies informed by Durkin’s model to ascertain exactly how the “my way or the highway” crowd actually spends its time. Such studies also should be done to check on folks using more constructivist-based approaches as well. Given some of the things Shanahan has reported in his blog I suspect some constructivists are shortchanging students on the time given to decoding. I have to wonder aloud if there isn’t a scenario where doing systematic comprehension and decoding instruction would produce improved reading scores (and more importantly better readers!).

CONCERN FOUR- Some folks are trying to ban all programs except their own.

One of my friends from England likened some SOR folks to being like the mockingbird. When a mockingbird egg is left in another bird’s nest after the egg hatches, the mockingbird hatchling kills all the other chicks. MYOH SOR folks ignore what early childhood folks say about how to best teach younger children- ignore what researchers say about the downside of using retention to raise reading scores. They laude many of the programs that use retention as “miracles” that prove that SOR works. They fail to call for these programs to drop this incredibly harmful practice. The tests they use to prove their “miracles” are usually tests of decoding, not comprehension. In my blog post entitled Show Me the Beef, I called on them to provide multiple examples of district-wide studies using full comprehension tests, not decoding tests LINK. So far, they’ve not done this. They are getting laws passed that allow their model AND ONLY THEIR MODEL to be used. This strips away the rights of school districts to be the best judge of what will work with their kids. See other parts of this post to review my criticisms of the efficacy of the research they use to justify these criticisms. Exposing the half-truths and misdirection some SOR folks are using to get such legislation passed is critical. Learning how to speak to and counter such criticisms is also critical. PL Thomas has put together some great materials to that end LINK.

CONCERN FIVE- SOR “my way or the highway” folks are discussing things on social media in a way that effectively eliminates any real dialogue around the issue.

I have many friends in the Balanced Literacy community who have been swarmed multiple times by “my way or the highway” SOR folks. Many of my friends have simply stopped posting, in part for their own mental health. The dialogue from the “My way or the highway group” is often mean, vitriolic, and ill-informed. They often “shoot from the hip” without fact-checking first. I have been at the receiving end of such folks “shooting from the hip” and spreading misinformation about me and my blog LINK. A major figure in their leadership takes a “punch you in the nose” stance, leading to followers who too often “take the low road.” Here is what one of them had to say about me just this past week.

“@DoctorSam7, & ILA & BL publishers/authors refuse culpability. By putting their profits over children worldwide, they cause more injury. 2 be satisfied w/32% when 95 can be had is their own branded arrogance”

Several points about this attack. First ILA is a non-profit. Most of my own literacy work is pro-bono. So this is yet another example of a SOR advocate failing to fact check.  The “cause injury” charge flies in the face of evidence that the practices we use work as presented elsewhere in this entry, evidence that SOR folks try to discount and discredit. The fallacies of the 32% success rate (lack of success rate?) are explored elsewhere in the blog. All in all, this very personal attack is mild compared to others that have been made on me and my constructivist colleagues. I’ve been told I should be ashamed of what I’ve done in my 50 plus years teaching and helping kids. I’m not. I know I’ve helped the kids; the parents know I’ve helped the kids and the learning for the kids has stuck over time. Teacher bashing like this, discrediting teachers at every turn seems to be a public relations tactic of this brand of SOR. Sadly, it is starting to drive many good teachers out of the field.

There are lots more examples of such brazen attacks to be found. I’m trying to give a measured response to these kinds of attacks. I’ve pointed out the need to Talk More and Argue Less in my Literacy Today article LINK p20. I’m trying to push back hard against the half-truths and misdirection while still talking to (and interviewing!)  SOR folks who have not taken these extreme, indefensible positions.

CONCLUSION. These aren’t all my concerns, just the top 5 concerns. So, is there any hope for the future? Is there any hope for using common sense to find common ground? I think there is. In one of my first posts on this topic four years ago, I said that even if the SOR folks pushing their very narrow agenda win, they will lose in the long run LINK. That is because they don’t have a method that works for most kids most of the time. Once the parents of Word Callers and very young children see that the SOR isn’t working for them, I predict they will start pushing for another swing of the instructional pendulum. As a centrist, I am trying to push back against the misdirection and trying to use common sense to find common ground. I am already using many of the practices recommended by the moderate SOR folks. So are many of my constructivist colleagues. A dialogue on all this is possible. The buy-in for the dialogue is for everyone to admit that their position has limits and limitations. Those willing to do that can start the construction of Cambourne’s quilt of instructional practices. Thanks for considering these ideas. Hoping many of you will join me in what P.D. Pearson once called “The Radical Middle” LINK

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka the guy in the center who is happy to take flak from all sides because he is a teacher trying hard to do what’s best for the kids)

EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA- Friday Night Post about the March 3rd & 4th Write to Learn Conference in Columbia, Missouri by Dr. Sam Bommarito

EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA- Friday Night Post about the March 3rd & 4th Write to Learn Conference in Columbia, Missouri

Write to Learn is one of the most respected conferences held in the Midwest. For several decades Missouri Literacy Association has sponsored or co-sponsored this conference. This year it is face to face. Many well-known speakers are presenting. Here is a link to the conference, an overview of the conference LINK, and a screen capture giving conference highlights.

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve interviewed several presenters for the conference. The interviews include links to resources from the speakers and the speakers giving a brief (15-20 minute) talk about what they will be saying or doing. Interviews with Molly Ness LINK, Kirsten Ziemke LINK and Berit Gordon LINK. are included. Be sure to click on links that interest you and look and listen. BTW, yours truly will be doing a breakout session on Friday afternoon. Hope to see you there!

Dr. Sam Bommarito, aka the centrist who uses ideas from all sides to inform his teaching

Copyright 2022 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely the view of this author 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 the blog to make sure you won’t miss it.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.

An interview of Berit Gordon- Berit will be doing a full-day workshop at The Write to Learn Conference. Interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

An interview of Berit Gordon- Berit will be doing a full-day workshop at The Write to Learn Conference. Interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Here are a few facts about Berit taken from her Heinemann website:


Berit will be giving the Friday Keynote at the Write to Learn Conference in Columbia, Missouri. The description of that session has this to say, “When we access strategies that help us stay happy and healthy in a demanding job, we will experience our best teaching selves. Through an overall approach that involves teacher choice, as well as innovative and user-friendly strategies for literacy teachers, Berit will show you the way to avoid burnout and find joy in your essential work as a teacher. This session is based on Berit’s book, The Joyful Teacher. After the keynote, Berit will be doing a face-to-face full-day workshop. The name of that workshop is “Breathing New Life into Literacy.” Now let’s turn to the interview and see what Berit has to say about her very exciting presentations for Write to Learn.

1. Tell us a little about your personal and professional background- 01:25

2. You are a best-selling author of books for teachers and a coach and supporter to schools across the country. Tell us briefly about your two books, The Joyful Teacher and More Fake Reading- 04:45

3. Talk about the importance of having foundational goals in place- 8:20

4. Other thoughts/Closing Remarks- 11:20


Follow Berit on Twitter @beritgordon

Visit Berit’s website at- LINK

There you will find links to both of her books- LINK

In conclusion- only two more weeks until Write to Learn. As previously indicated, this is a face-to-face conference being held in an easy to get to, central location. Hope to see you there.

Here is a link to the Write to Learn website. LINK

Dr. Sam Bommarito, aka the centrist who uses ideas from all sides to inform his teaching

Copyright 2021 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely the view of this author 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 the blog to make sure you won’t miss it. Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.

Learning to Play with Three Strings: Why I Defend the use of both Balanced Literacy (Constructivist Practices) and Direct Teaching (Behaviorist Practices) in Our Literacy Programs Today by Dr. Sam Bommarito

What on earth do I mean by “playing with three strings”? Those of you who attended LitCon last week already know. The idea comes from a story told by Lucy Calkins as part of her inspiring Keynote speech. I apologize in advance because I cannot convey the story as masterfully as Lucy. In a nutshell, a famous violinist, who suffered the effects of being a polio victim, came out to play. He slowly and painfully made his way to his place at center stage, removed his leg braces, sat down, and prepared to play. As he did so, the sound of a string breaking echoed throughout the concert hall. A stilled hush followed. The audience waited, expecting the violinist would have to put back on his leg braces and painstakingly retrace his steps to get a new instrument. That’s not what happened. What happened was that he adjusted his playing. He taught himself to play with three strings. That meant abandoning his usual way of playing. He had to make many changes as he played. In the end, he persevered and triumphed. He received a standing ovation.  

My key takeaway from Lucy’s inspirational speech is that we must learn to adapt in the face of great adversity. We must learn to play with three strings. This requires that we be willing to change what we usually do and adapt as we go along. This leads me to the question: How can we possibly adapt and persevere given the current strife in the world of literacy? Here are some thoughts about that. I’ll start with some pushback about what is being said about constructivist ideas (balanced literacy) and end with a call to use both constructivist and behaviorist ideas as we create a combined approach to the teaching of reading.

  • We know that all children “do not learn on the same day in the same way.” One size does not fit all. What works for the child who has major problems with decoding does not always work for word-callers. I have called the word callers the forgotten children of the great debate. LINK   
  • We know that teachers of readers, especially beginning readers, need much more professional development in teaching phonics and scaffolding students into using orthographic information. Simply teaching teachers how to teach synthetic phonics is not enough. We need to teach them about all the ways to teach decoding. Review the ILA position paper to see the extensive research base behind that statement LINK
  • We know that balanced literacy (constructivist practices) has worked and can work despite the naysayers claiming these practices are a complete failure. Visit the works of Paul Thomas for the academic documentation of that LINK LINK. Also, look at the recent results posted by researchers about the constructivist-based approach known as Reading Recovery LINK.
  • We know that SOME (not all!) Science of Reading Advocates use half-truths and misdirection to promote a very limited and limiting way of teaching. I call what they say half-truth in part because the only way to arrive at their conclusions is to accept their very limited definitions of what reading is and limit our review of the research to a very narrow and limited body of knowledge. Many well-credentialed researchers have criticized the so-called Science of Reading advocates about this very point LINK
  • We know that it takes more than simply building background knowledge to develop the kind of comprehension skill readers need to function in the ever-changing, ever-challenging arena of the global economy. My last blog talked about that LINK.
  • We know that some SOR advocates use tactics like swarming, personal attacks, and misinformation to dissuade educators with views other than their own from speaking out. I call those advocates the “my way or the highway” crowd. I’ve personally experienced the tactic of misinformation LINK, and I’ve been swarmed many times. But not all advocates of direct instruction agree with the pronouncements of the “my way or the highway” crew. A well-known advocate of direct Instruction has accused some SOR folks of “making that stuff up” when it comes to their claims about the efficacy of the long-term use of decodables. LINK
  • It’s time to look at ALL the research, both qualitative and quantitative, before making important educational decisions. It’s also time to stop treating preliminary results as final results. Would you get on an airplane if all you knew was that it had passed its wind tunnel tests? I wouldn’t. I want to be on one that has been flight-tested many times.
  • It’s time to reverse the laws championed by the “my way or the highway” branch of SOR. These laws have clearly hurt many of our children LINK. These laws are opposed by groups that support other aspects of the SOR LINK. In my opinion, some of the other state laws are preempting the right of school boards to choose what is best for their children. 

Overall, I have found this article from the New York Times as a good summary of the current state of affairs in the world of literacy. This article is the product of reading experts David Reinking, Victoria J. Risko and George G. Hruby. Here is a link to the article LINK, and a link to the blog I wrote that talked about the article and its implications LINK. For me, the most important takeaway from the article is this:

“Instead, reasonable differences exist along a continuum. On one end are those who see phonics as the foundation of learning to read for all students. To them, phonics — lots of it — is the essential ingredient that insures success for all students learning to read, and it must be mastered before other dimensions of reading are taught.

On the other end are those who see phonics as only one among many dimensions of learning to read — one that gains potency when integrated with meaningfully engaged reading and writing, with vocabulary and language development, with instruction aimed at increasing comprehension and fluency, and so forth.”

Given all this, is it possible to reach the centrist goals?

It may seem hard to see how we can reach the centrist goals I’ve advocated for in the past four years. It’s hard to see how we can find common ground and common sense. It may be hard but not impossible if ALL of us are willing to learn to play using three strings.

Inquiry learning (constructivist) and direct teaching (behaviorist) have been around for over two millennia. In all that time, neither has supplanted the other. So, does it make any sense to pick one over the other? Is that even possible? I think that 2000 plus years of history say that it is not. Let’s stop treating instructional approaches as a dichotomy where we must choose one or the other. Inquiry learning and direct Instruction have their philosophical roots in the thinking of Socrates and Aristotle:

Instead of replacing one with the other, let’s adjust our thinking and learn how to use both. To this end, I use the thinking of folks like Tim Rasinski, who views teaching as both art and science. In my opinion, part of the art of teaching is learning when to use direct teaching and when to use inquiry learning.

Recently, I’ve talked about Cambourne and his idea of changing the dialogue about reading instruction from a reading wars metaphor to the metaphor of a quilt LINK pg18. We can add (or subtract) from the quilt based on the new things we learn about teaching. We draw from both sides (all sides) as we create and modify the quilt. If we think about it, Cambourne’s model is teaching us to play with three strings.

Four years ago, when I started my current dialogue about the state of reading instruction, I suggested we replace the ongoing attempts to have reading revolutions with the idea of a reading evolution LINK. A reading evolution would draw ideas from all sides. It requires that all sides acknowledge they have some of the answers, but not all the answers. I’ve outlined ideas of where there is common ground LINK LINK. I didn’t know it at the time, but I think I was suggesting that we all learn how to play with three strings.

I recognize that the “my way or the highway” advocates may never alter their views. But as I explained four years ago, even if they win, they will lose. They call for replacing everything with their approach and only their approach. Like all the times this has been tried before, their approach works for many but not for all. They are once again trying to move the pendulum from one extreme to the other. Historically that has always resulted in the pendulum shifting yet again.

Let’s remember that not all SOR folks subscribe to the “my way or the highway view.” That is the fact that gives me the most hope. So, I’ll conclude by saying that it is time to stop the pendulum in the middle. It is time to learn from and use ideas from all sides. It is time for all sides to realize that their particular way has limits and limitations. I think it is time to make Cambourne’s quilt  LINK pg18, LINK. I think it’s time to join P.D. Pearson’s Radical Middle LINK. I think it is time that we all start learning to play with three strings. If we do, I think the winners will be the students we serve. I think that making them the winners is something on which we can ALL agree.

Dr. Sam Bommarito, aka the centrist who is learning how to play with three strings.

Next week I am posting an interview of Berit Gordon, one of the keynote speakers at the upcoming Write to Learn conference in Missouri. She is the author of the books The Joyful Teacher and More Fake Reading. Be sure to have a look at that upcoming blog. In the meantime, here is a link to the conference. LINK

Copyright 2022 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely the view of this author 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 the blog to make sure you won’t miss it.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.

An interview of Kristin Ziemke- She will be doing a full-day workshop at The Write to Learn Conference. Interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

An interview of Kristin Ziemke- She will be doing a full-day workshop at The Write to Learn Conference. Interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Here are a few facts about Kristen taken from the Write to Learn Conference website:


I’ve had the pleasure of attending workshops by Kristen at previous Write to Learn Conferences. Her workshops are engaging and always hands-on. Bring your electronic device (laptop, tablet, phone). You’ll need it to try out the many and varied things she will introduce you to. You’ll be coming away with many “take it home and use it on Monday” kinds of activities. You’ll find links to Kristen’s books and websites at the end of this blog. I found her webpage to be a major help during the times my teaching had to be all virtual. If you come for her session, you won’t be sorry. Let’s see what Kristen had to say during the interview:

  1. Tell us a little bit about yourself  1:18
  2. Tell us what’s happening in your WTL session 3:04
  3. Tell us about your books 6:27
  4. Closing thoughts 11:01

Here is a link to Kristen’s Website (LINK)

While you’re on it be sure to check out some of these wonderful resources:

Here are some of Kristen’s Books

         LINK                                                    (LINK)                         (LINK)                                                               

As indicated, on Friday, March 4th Kristen will be giving an all-day workshop at the Write to Learn conference in Columbia, Missouri. This conference is co-sponsored by the Missouri Literacy Association (an ILA affiliate). BTW, I’ll be there for sure, and I’m scheduled to do a breakout session. In addition to Kristen, the conference will feature Matthew R. Kay, Molly Ness, and Berit Gordon. The conference is centrally located. It is held in Columbia, Mo. Here is a link to the conference LINK. More information about the conference now follows. Hope to see you there!!!

Dr. Sam Bommarito, aka the centrist who uses ideas from all sides to inform his teaching

Copyright 2021 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely the view of this author 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 the blog to make sure you won’t miss it.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.