A great way to end poetry month. A rerelease of The Missouri Reader’s poetry issues by Dr. Sam Bommarito.

You may know that one of the hats I wear is that of the Co-Editor of The Missouri Reader.  The Missouri Reader has been publishing for over 40 years now.  We publish between two and three issues a year. We are peer edited and have a highly qualified review board.  We do publish some very well-known literary leaders, but we also give teachers a chance to publish right alongside them. Most often, those teachers are graduate students at one of our state’s universities, though we do accept articles from all over the United States (and Beyond!). Details on how to submit are always found on the last page of each issue of the journal.  

Here is an excerpt of what I had to say when we first released this special poetry edition:

“Readers. I now want to editorialize a bit.  Please indulge me. It relates to the theme of our special issue, Poetry- a Path to Literacy.   Lately, I’ve been wondering aloud why we have so many people writing about the need to return to joy in the reading and writing field (lots of titles about that lately). Why do we have a famous video called Don’t Read Like a Robot.  Why are some so determined to turn reading into a race?  Do we really need a nation of Robot Readers and Auctioneers? Or do we need a nation of students who know how to read like Storytellers? Storytellers around those long-ago campfires were the beginnings of what we now call civilization.  The historian in me thinks they were at the heart of the movement that separated humankind from the rest of the living creatures on our planet. To read a story like a storyteller, you’ve got to understand the characters, know what they act like, and what they should sound like. I think that is why Rasinski calls prosody the gateway to comprehension. To read like a storyteller is to return to the most basic of basics.  All the authors contributing to this very special issue of our journal hope that our readers find the ideas and resources in this issue that will help them get back to the real basics. Learning to read poetry well is one of the key things that make up what I call the real basics. I also hope the readers of this issue will find much of what they need to help create a nation of readers who know how to read like storytellers. Perhaps then we would not have to worry about how to bring joy back to all aspects of literacy. The answer is so very simple. Read (and write) because you want to. Let your children do the same.

Pardon me, it’s nighttime and I suddenly feel the urge to build a very nice campfire. Then I think I’ll get out a copy of the new journal. I hear there are some wonderful things to read in it, poems and such. I hear that there’s a whole world of joy to find if you’re just willing to look. Please do have a look. You deserve some joy and so do your children.

POETRY!”

Here is the link to the poetry issue of The Missouri Reader:  https://joom.ag/o1ta

It has been four years since we first released the poetry issue. We also followed up with another special issue on poetry which gave 55 ideas on things to do during poetry week LINK.

As I share these two special editions with you, I want to take the time to give a very special thank you to David Harrison. Doing these two issues was his brainchild. Over the past two decades, David has made numerous submissions to our journal.  Of course, the most significant involves our most read issue of all time, the poetry issue, which is the topic of this blog post. He has published numerous poetry collections and collaborated with Tim Rasinski on widely used scholastic books that allow students to use poetry as part of doing word ladders  LINK, LINK. David does a regular poetry activity for teachers and students on his blog/Facebook page LINK. Not only is David a well-published poet, but he also advocates for using poetry in education both in our state and on the national level. He is a widely recognized leader in literacy. Because of his work in literacy, he has a school named for him in Springfield, Missouri. He is the recipient of this year’s literacy award from the state’s ILA organization, The Missouri Literacy Association. In sum, David is a well-published poet, an advocate for using poetry in education and has many recognitions for his literary work. As we rerelease these two issues of The Missouri Reader, I want to give a shout-out to David for all he has done for our journal and all he has done over the years to help folks see how very important poetry is.

Happy Reading and Writing!

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the storyteller/poet/singer-songwriter)

P.S. Next week, I will resume doing interviews beginning with an interview with Dr. Andy Johnson about his new book and his latest podcast.

Copyright 2023 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.

More thoughts about the social media version of Science of Reading by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Last week’s blog about pushing back on the social media version of Science of Reading was well received. It had well over 4000 views in less than a week. It seems that there is a great deal of interest in the centrist point of view about reading. That view differs sharply from the views presented by some of the social media gurus, including Emily Hanford and Karen Vaites. My blog made the case that the story being told by these social media pundits is incomplete and misleading. Remember that both these folks are, first and foremost, public relations people. They are adept at making the best case for their product. In this case, that product is something called structured literacy. Unfortunately, part of the way they are making their case for selling this product is by claiming the issues around the current discussions about how to teach reading are all settled science. I must respectfully beg to disagree. Some researchers say it is all settled. Louise Moats is chief among the researchers making this claim. However, there are many well-known, well-respected, well-published researchers that say otherwise LINK, LINK, LINK LINK. In addition to those researchers mentioned earlier, P.D. Pearson has also levied some major criticisms of what was being said in the press and on social media LINK. Recently he posted this:

Remember that Pearson was the architect of the idea of teaching using the gradual release of responsibility. That is the I do (teacher demonstrates), we do (teacher partners), and you do (student internalizes the information/strategy). This makes the student responsible for their own learning. Nell Duke and others used that model to improve students’ reading performance by teaching comprehension strategies using gradual release. Duke has several decades of research demonstrating that doing this significantly increases reading scores. Yet, based on the work of Willingham, some SOR advocates are saying to reduce the time spent teaching reading strategies. There is an apparent division within the SOR world on this point. For instance, Shanahan has questioned whether drastically reducing the time spent teaching comprehension strategies is wise. Read his blog post entitled The Spirit is Willingham, but the Flesch is Weak. In addition, Shanahan has questioned the notion of putting phonics first. See his blog post entitled What do you think of “phonics first” or “phonics only” in the primary grades?. My overall point here is that it is not settled science, and taking the pronouncements of the social gurus as undisputed fact is not merited. In fact, some researchers are saying that those pronouncements are actually harmful LINK.

This week, I’ve gotten several pieces of good advice for improving the Talking Points document. I’ll be incorporating those into version 2.0 of that document. I expect that it will be ready early this summer. I’ve also come across several more good sources of information about the discussions about the best ways to teach reading. I wanted to share those with you now.

Helen Prouix posted this on Twitter this week:

Here is what you will find if you use this LINK:

In addition to the podcasts above, they also include links to many research articles. Here is a sample:

Please note that the links in the screen captures above will not work. However, all the links shown here will work if you go to the site. I highly recommend visiting this site if you want to defend the centrist position about the Science of Reading.

Dr. Andrew Johnson has written extensively about several educational topics, including the Science of Reading and LTRs.

Here is the link to his YouTube channel. LINK. These screen captures will show you what you will find if you visit this link. BTW I’ve arranged an interview with Dr. Johnson. Be on the lookout for that in the coming weeks.

Dr. Johnson is having a webinar on April 27th. Here is a link to that webinar LINK.

Also, here is an addition to Dr. Johnson’s posts. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:share:7055591034814173184/

My Talking Points document is one page on purpose. If you want a longer document, look at this one from Crossland Literacy. With their permission, I’ve downloaded their PDF into my blog’s sharefolder LINK. You’ll find it right next to the Talking Points pdf. The screen capture below shows the table of contents for the PDF. There are many links to information that will help you defend the centrist position.

Finally, most of you are aware of the extensive writings of P.L. Thomas. Here are links to two of his most recent blogs. LINK, LINK.

IN CONCLUSION

Knowledge is power. By consolidating the information from around the internet into one place, I’m trying to empower those of you who feel that taking a centrist stand is the best course of action in the current reading wars. As you do. I ask you to take that stand in a way that does not use strawmen. As I’ve written many times, we need to use information from all sides LINK. We need to give students access to all forms of phonics, including synthetic phonics. We need to improve teacher training so teachers can teach students how use all forms of phonics. We need to improve teacher training so they know how to teach comprehension in a way that results in students internalizing comprehension strategies. We need to teach students in a way that results in them becoming lifelong readers and writers. We need to recognize that all forms of teaching reading have limits and limitations, even those forms that we prefer the most. If we can do that, perhaps there can finally be a Reading Evolution.

Until next week- Happy Reading and Writing.

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

Copyright 2023 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely the 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.

PPS- Feedback on possible corrections or additions to the Talking Points document is still welcome. Don’t hesitate to get in touch with me at bommaritosam@yahoo.com and include the word “Feedback” in the subject. I hope to complete version 2.0 by the start of this summer.

Pushing back on the social media version of the Science of Reading by Dr. Sam Bommarito

My regular readers know that I am a centrist. As we deal with the issues of teaching reading, I believe we should use the best of what all sides have to offer as we figure out what we should be doing for our kids. I also believe that decisions about that need to be made at the local level. Local school boards know their population best. They are in the best position to implement policies that fit local populations. I truly believe that one size does not fit all. See last week’s blog for details LINK. 

I have a 50-plus-year career as a teacher and a teacher of teachers. I’ve taught every grade from kindergarten through graduate school. I’ve watched the pendulum swing back and forth many times during the past five decades. What has been happening is that we keep going from one extreme to the other, never stopping in the middle. Inspired by the writings of P.D. Pearson LINK, I have become convinced that we need to try something that’s never been tried before. We need to try Pearson’s Radical Middle LINK. Here is a brief excerpt from that document (the underlining is mine).

“In this ecological approach, balance is not a matter of evening the score; instead, it is a matter of assembling an array of skills, strategies, processes, and practices that are sufficiently rich and synergistic to guarantee a full and rich curriculum for all students (one that, incidentally, would honor tenets 4- 7 in my list of tenets).”

In the latest iteration of the reading wars things have become especially antagonistic and combative. A group has emerged claiming they have the one and only solution to reading problems. They ignore decades of research around the origins of reading problems, and instead, they lay those problems at the feet of the folks promoting balanced literacy. They oversimplify and misdirect. Their followers have taken to attacking teachers who fail to follow their version of SOR. These attacks are mean-spirited and have the effect of quelling any dialogue about best practices in reading. This group seeks to replace all that has come before with its brand of the science of reading. Some of their key leaders are experts at public relations and have been creating a one-sided public relations campaign designed to sell their product and discredit all others. In effect, they are creating a one-sided monologue where only their views are considered. Many researchers have been pushing back on the views of this group and their leaders LINK, LINK,  LINK. These researchers have found that following the social media version of the Science of Reading does more harm than good LINK. If this group is allowed to ban all but their methods successfully, the result will be yet another swing of the pendulum, a very costly swing. That is because the methods they are pushing have been tried in the past and did not work for everyone. Consider the information from this video created by George Hruby, the University of Kentucky LINK. As he indicates, science is a process of discovery. I encourage the readers of this blog to take that point to heart as they think about the information I am about to present.

I thought it important for teachers and other educators to have information that helps push back against the disinformation spread through this one-sided public relations campaign. Accordingly, with the help of several colleagues, I have put together a pdf. A screen capture of that pdf can be found below. The links on the screen capture do not work. To get the full document with working links, please download the pdf found in this sharefolder LINK.  

Please use this document in the spirit in which it is presented. It is not saying that balanced literacy (or any other approach) is without limitations. Many things do need to be addressed in the current circumstances. Most important is the need to get the right kind of phonics to each student (most need synthetic, but some do need analytic- more on this point in future blogs). We need to consider things like the science of reading comprehension LINK, LINK, Scanlon’s work around using context as a part of problem-solving unknown words  LINK, and Duke & Cartwright’s active view of reading  LINK. However, dialogue around such things is impossible when one group forces its views on everyone else through ill-advised legislation. Good teachers are being attacked even when their methods are successful. Good programs are being banned, even when they are getting good results. That situation needs to be remedied. I hope getting the information in this handout out to educators and legislators can help do that. I’ll end with a thought from my Literacy Today article- lets Talk More, Argue Less LINK. Consider ALL the research. Let’s be ready to admit that all methods (including our favorite ones) have limits and limitations. Have a great weekend, everyone!

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

Copyright 2023 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely the 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.

PPS- Feedback on possible corrections or additions to the Talking Points document is welcome. Don’t hesitate to get in touch with me at bommaritosam@yahoo.com and include the word “Feedback” in the subject. I hope to create a version 2.0 by the end of this summer.

Using Common Sense to find Common Ground: A Centrist take on the Reading Wars. By Dr. Sam Bommarito

In the past two months, I’ve presented at several conferences. I talked about finding common ground in the discussion about the teaching of reading. I want to share some of the points I’ve been making as I talked to educators nationwide.

POINT ONE– making sense of the reading wars has been very important to me for a long time. It began with my doctoral thesis around the last iteration of the reading wars. One of my big takeaways from that study was that there was more common ground than most folks realize. See this slide:

POINT TWO- The current discussions about the best ways to teach reading are marred by significant misrepresentations made by what I have termed the social media version of Science of Reading. I firmly believe their claims do not represent the true science of reading. Many well-credentialed researchers agree.

POINT THREE- Especially in the arena of the social media talk around SOR, all sides must avoid the use of strawmen. As we carry out those discussions, we must learn to talk, not bicker.

As indicated, we need to learn to talk, not bicker, as we discuss social media.

POINT FOUR- When seeking common ground, we must especially look at the ideas of folks who seem to appeal to people from all sides of this debate.

POINT FIVE– When seeking common ground, we also need to carefully pay special attention to researchers who follow the research and use the research from the past as a springboard for future research.

As we build on previous research, we must use the best, most high-quality research possible.

IN CONCLUSION-

This is the message I have been trying to spread for the past few weeks. It says to consider the ideas from all sides. Allow districts to use the best of those ideas. Acknowledge that choices about adopting what course of action should be taken are best made at the district level since districts are in the best position to know the needs of their particular unique populations. In this next slide notice what I view as the hope for the future of education.

NEXT WEEK: I will continue this discussion and provide some resources for you to consider as you think about ways to cut through the gordian knot that has been the Reading Wars. Until then, Happy Reading and Happy Writing!

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 view and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.