About P.D. Pearson’s Webinar and pushing back on Karen Vaites’ attacks on Pearson. – A Blog entry by Dr. Sam Bommarito.

Let’s start with the good news first. P.D. Pearson and R. Tierney did a webinar this past Thursday. It was entitled Fact-Checking the Science of Reading. I’m told that over 1000 folks signed up for the event. It was very well received by the participants. Here is what one participant, @Linda_Fenner had to say (used with permission):

“R Tierney and PD Pearson did an amazing job of distilling decades of reading research into the most important insights from diverse research traditions that should inform policy and instruction. Now if we can just get journalists to pay attention to the facts.”

Pearson proceeded as a real researcher should. He looked at a very wide range of evidence and then made carefully thought out (dare I say guarded?) comments about the evidence. Pearson did not try to draw conclusions beyond the data. He was careful to advocate for proceeding in a non-combative way. Pearson called for discussion, not bickering. He tried to set the stage for genuine dialogue around the topic. He specifically said that both sides should avoid using strawmen in their discussions. That means both sides (all sides?) would have to face up to the strongest version of the “opposition,” not the weakest. The bad news is that Karen Vaites, who sees herself as a parent advocate, did not view things that way. Here is what she had to say on Twitter (see the 20h Twitter post below) and what I had to say in response:

So, let’s look at the facts behind the charges around his faculties and his failure to keep up with the research. I view these charges as falling into the category of discount and discredit public relations statements. Suppose Pearson’s faculties today are as bad as Vaites implied. How is it then that he recently co-authored a well-researched book about the history of reading LINK and used the occasion of this webinar to announce the publication of the 7^th edition of Current Issues and Best Practices in Literacy Instruction?, a book he also co-authored. That book will be available in June. It contains all the latest research- research that Vaites and some of her friends seem to want to ignore. I think Karen Vaites owes P.D. Pearson a public apology for her shoot-from-the-hip, ill-considered public relations statements.

Now let’s look further at the claim that Pearson is not up on the latest version of SOR. Here are a few screen captures of slides from the webinar about the research and ideas he and his co-author considered.

They began with the premise that there is no such thing as “settled science.” In fact, they say that the term “settled science” is an oxymoron

They talked about how they prepared for this webinar:

They considered key books from the literacy field:

They considered a variety of research:

They even considered the social media debate:

By the way, there was much more in the webinar, including insights into the issues around cultural diversity. There is also the information from the two books cited earlier, which contain extensive documentation using peer-reviewed research. All this demonstrates that Pearson and his co-author made a concerted effort to consider ALL the research, including the most recent research. The real problem for what I have dubbed the social media version of Science of Reading folks is that they do not always want to consider all the research. They ignore, discount, or discredit any research that doesn’t fit their limited and limiting public relations agenda. I could use this statement as a segway into yet another US vs. THEM discussion of the Science of Reading. But that is exactly what Pearson said not to do. Pearson explicitly said that both sides should stop using strawmen. He said that both sides should be willing to talk to each other. Pearson called for everyone to follow the research, even when it leads to rejecting methods that are personal favorites but not really supported by research.

There are 1000 plus teachers who attended this webinar. I think they are ready to do that. There are thousands and thousands of teachers, researchers, and parents seeking answers based on ALL (not just some) of the research. They are willing to accept and use the kind of answers researchers have to give. Let’s not let public relations gurus like Karen Vaites derail that dialogue with public relations ploys. Instead, let’s start having serious discussions using common sense to seek out common ground and common practices. I’ve posted my hope for that kind of future once before. Here is an excerpt from one of my previous blogs, LINK. I began by asking what happened when some of the best researchers in the world tried to listen to and learn from one another. Amanda P. Goodwin, Co-Editor of RRQ, talked about that. She outlined what happened when the two special issues of RRQ were published in 2020 and 2021. Those issues looked at research from a variety of different views. She gave a link to those issues. The link allows readers to view the abstracts of all the articles from the two issues. Here is that LINK. Amanda then described how, in the review process, 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.”

Maybe it is time to find journalists who are willing to talk about folks who feel that it is “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.” Maybe it’s time to start listening to the whole story. Maybe it’s time to recognize just how complex and nuanced the problems we face are. Maybe it’s time for all of us to follow the example of the RRQ researchers and begin a real dialogue based on the strongest versions of all the various positions. Maybe it’s time for a reading Evolution, LINK. Dare to dream!

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.

I have just been invited to speak at the 2024 Wisconsin ILA convention. If you are interested in having me speak or present, contact me at bommariosam@yahoo.com

More pushback on the Social Media version of SOR: A blog post by Dr. Sam Bommarito

In last week’s blog, I talked about the major pushback that has emerged recently about what I have come to call the social media version of the Science of Reading. That version claims they have the one and only Science of Reading and that the whole issue of teaching reading is now settled. They claim that researchers have reached a consensus, and that consensus is that the social media version of Science of Reading should be implemented nationwide to the exclusion of all else. The fact is that contention has been called into question by many major researchers and educators. I talked about Amanda Goodman’s article. She is the Co-Editor of the Reading Research Quarterly. Here is the link to my review of that interview: LINK.

This week I want to call attention to several more important pieces that have been written countering the claims of the social media version of SOR. I will start by calling attention to one very important point Goodman raised during her interview:

“For instance, advocates often claim that “the science of reading” proves that it’s ineffective to use pictures and other contextual cues to help students figure out the words they’re trying to decode. Even some state literacy boards have become adamant that this is bad practice: No pictures! Teachers need to make students sound out the letters!

But their RRQ article, Donna Scanlon and Kimberly Anderson review 25 years of rigorous experimental studies in which kids were given systematic phonics instruction and also taught to use context cues to help them when they struggle to sound out words. And what they found was that kids tend to become more successful readers when they get both kinds of instruction, compared to those who get phonics alone. In short, they found that more resources are better. It’s self-defeating to insist on an either-or choice between phonics and context cueing, as though these practices were at war with each other. It’s much more helpful to treat them as complementary.”

One of my mantras has been to consider all the research before making important decisions about what reading instruction should look like. Clearly, Scanlon’s research is being discounted and ignored by some state literacy boards and state legislators. The result of this is that kids are being hurt. This week Dr. Billy Molasso, executive director of Reading Recovery, wrote a blog post entitled When Doing the Right Thing Is the Wrong Thing  LINK.

Here  are some things Dr. Molasso said that I think is worth considering:

“Even the National Reading Panel – frequently cited while justifying SOR laws – concluded that, ‘Phonics instruction should not become the dominant component in a reading program, neither in the amount of time devoted to it nor in the significance attached.’ Yet here we are, forcing teachers to swim upstream amidst mandates that go against common sense tactics to help kids access the right tools at the right moment.

Let’s be clear: when you choose which tools teachers can use, you are choosing which children to help. Banning tools is tantamount to saying the children who need those tools don’t matter, and shame on the states that have legislated to leave some children behind. (italics & underlying are mine) If you acknowledge that children deserve the right to read, your advocacy must reflect a commitment to ALL children.”

I’ve made the point many times before that following the Social Media Version of SOR helps some kids at the expense of others. The claims of public relations gurus like Emily Handford and Karen Vaites have been repeatedly challenged. Just this week, Paul Thomas posted a letter Diane Stephens wrote to the Curriculum Coordinators in South Carolina School Districts. LINK. Stephens again points out the lack of evidence supporting the social media brand of SOR.

“It is important to note that the SOR is not the same as the science of reading discussed earlier in this letter.

What reading research (the science of reading) has shown is that there are no differences in outcomes among the various approaches to teaching phonics and that a “one-size-fits-all” approach is not effective. Knowledgeable teachers know best about what instruction is needed at what time for their students. In addition, as authors Reinking, Hruby and Risko (2023) explain in their research article, phonics instruction has been shown to be “more effective when embedded in a more comprehensive program of literacy instruction that accommodates students’ individual needs and multiple approaches to teaching phonics—a view supported by substantial research. “

There simply is no research support for SOR or for a product, called LETRS, often associated with it. There have not been controlled studies in which the progress of students in classrooms taught by SOR teachers were compared to the progress of students taught by teachers whose practices were consistent with research on best practices. And there is absolutely no research which shows that LETRS is an effective instructional approach. (See HERE).”

Finally, I promised last week to talk about another recent article about the social media version of SOR. Paul Thomas wrote it. The title is FACT CHECKING SCDOE SCIENCE OF READING INFOGRAPHIC LINK. Here are some of the key points he makes:

FACT: Reading achievement in the U.S. and most states has remained essentially flat for three-plus decades. There is no credible evidence of a reading crisis.

FACT: The Mississippi “miracle” is a manufactured narrative created by the media. (Yet Karen Vaites posted these claims again this week despite Paul pointing out that the 3^rd-grade rise in scores, created in part through retention, disappeared by 8^th grade)

FACT: The NRP report is now 20+ years old, and reading research has advanced beyond the report’s findings. The report also was underfunded and incomplete and should not be viewed as “settled” science. The media and political misrepresentation of the NRP report, however, continues to mislead; the report found systematic phonics instruction increases pronunciation of nonsense words in grade one but does not improve comprehension. (Italics and underlining are mine) As well the report found systematic phonics was no more effective than W.L. or B.L.

FACT: Starting as a media movement supported by state-based dyslexia organizations, SOR has become a political movement due to its direct impact on state legislation. That movement has misrepresented the reading sciences. Further, SOR has increasingly become a marketing label for reading materials and programs, often identified as “structured literacy,” which can be scripted programs that de-professionalize teachers and impose a one-size-fits-all approach to phonics on all students.

Paul made additional points. Read his entire blog post for that additional information. All these pushbacks on the social media version of SOR have appeared at different times in different places. I thought it important to bring them together in one place. I think much of what has been said lately supports taking what I have called a centrist position LINK, LINK LINK. As I said in one of my blogs, “It’s Not Settled Science or Rocket Science, and It’s Not Your Science, It’s Our Science”. I think it is time for educators to take the great debate out of the hands of the social media gurus/spin doctors and put it back in the hands of the researchers and educators. For me, the most hopeful sign of that happening came when Amanda Goodwin (researcher) described what happened in the process of peer review for the writing of the Reading Research Quarterly articles:

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 think that is a good thought on which to end this conversation- not to insist that there’s a single, “one best” way to teach reading. Instead, let’s consider ideas from all the different sides. Let’s really listen to all sides- just as the RRQ researchers did. Let’s try something that’s never been tried in the whole history of teaching reading. Let’s try stopping that pendulum in the middle for a while and see what happens. Dare to dream!

Next week I will resume my interviews. I have some good people lined up, including Gravity Goldberg and Dr. Chase Young. Until then:

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.

P.S. Don’t forget the upcoming webinar from P.D. Pearson. There will be lots to unpack from that webinar LINK.

What Dr. Amanda Goodwin, Co-Editor of RRQ, had to say about the Social Media version of SOR  A blog post by Dr. Sam Bommarito

There has been major pushback over the past few weeks about what I have come to call the social media version of the Science of Reading. That version claims they have the one and only Science of Reading and that the whole issue of teaching reading is now settled. They claim that researchers have reached a consensus, and that consensus is that the social media version of Science of Reading should be implemented nationwide to the exclusion of all else. The fact is that contention has been called into question. Let’s see what Amanda Goodman, the Co-Editor of the Reading Research Quarterly, had to say about this topic in a recent interview in the KAPPAN. Here is the link to the article: LINK.

A reminder that the Reading Research Quarterly (RRQ) is a peer-reviewed, widely respected reading journal. The International Reading Association publishes it. It sets the gold standard for reading research journals. It was first published in 1948 and has been published for over 70 years. Its standards are the highest in the field. Many of my friends who publish research about the reading field view the publication of an article in this journal as a career milestone. Only the best of the best are published in this journal. That said, let’s see what the current co-editor of the RRQ had to say about the consensus that seems to have developed around the concept of the Science of Reading. Here is one of several article highlights. These highlights were included in the article to encourage the sharing of Amanda Goodman’s key ideas:

This analysis of what researchers have to say about the SOR contrasts sharply with the social media version of SOR. Here is what Amanda had to say about that:

“You know, the version of the science of reading that has been presented in the media is very narrow, focusing mainly on alphabetics, phonics, and word reading. It’s also pretty directive, telling teachers that if they want to help kids learn to read, then they should do this, not that. But when we invited researchers to propose and submit articles on the science of reading, that’s not how they defined it. In all, we received about 90 article submissions and published 50 of them, many written by leading experts in reading and literacy, and we did not hear calls for the sort of narrow, directive approach to reading instruction that journalists and policy advocates often promote.”

Amanda goes on to talk about the two special issues about the SOR published by RRQ in 2020 and 2021. She gives a link to those issues. The link allows readers to view the abstracts of all the articles from the two issues. Here is that LINK. 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.”

Here are two more article highlights for you to consider:

As you can tell from these highlights, much more valuable information can be found in this article. I highly recommend that readers take the time to read the full article. My readers know that I have long advocated for taking a centrist position around the whole issue of how to teach reading LINK. I view this article as reinforcing taking that stance. I’ve mentioned before that the best advice I’ve seen about how to use research came from Nell Duke. She says to follow the research and see where it leads. I’ll say again- reviewing the research from these two special RRQ issues would be a giant step in that direction.

Next week I’ll look at another recent article about the social media version of SOR. Paul Thomas wrote it. The title is FACT CHECKING SCDOE SCIENCE OF READING INFOGRAPHIC.   If you want to look at it early, here is the LINK.

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.

P.S. Don’t forget the upcoming webinar from P.D. Pearson. There will be lots to unpack from that webinar LINK.

Dr. Andy Johnson discusses various issues around the reading wars: An interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

In this interview, Dr. Andy Johnson talks about various issues dealing with the reading wars. He focuses on dispelling misinformation and myths, which are currently being presented by the folks supporting the social media version of the science of reading. In addition, he tells us about his newest reading book- Designing Meaning-Based Interventions for Struggling Readers. That book is a treasure trove of information and practical ideas for teachers working with those readers. Here is Dr. Johnson’s biography LINK:

Here is a link to the YouTube interview:

Dr. Andy Johnson’s YouTube Channel LINK.

Dr. Andy Johnson’s Reading Instruction Show LINK.

Dr.  Andy Johnson’s Newest Reading Book LINK

Dr. Andy Johnson Twitter – @axe_andrew

Link to Dr. Johnson’s next webinar LINK.

Final Thoughts About This Interview.

Dr. Johnson has long been an advocate of using research, all the research, to inform us on the best ways to teach reading. There has been a growing tide of voices like Dr. Johnson’s, voices that are pushing back on the misdirection and misinformation given by the social media version of SOR. In addition to attending Dr. Johnson’s webinar, also have a look at the upcoming webinar by P.D. Pearson Fact-Checking the “Science of Reading”: Claims, Assumptions, and Consequences LINK. I’ll also be sharing Richard Allenton’s ideas around that same subject. Be on the lookout for what I say about Allenton’s article published in the Tennessee Reading Journal. In sum, it’s time to try something new. That something new is using ideas from all sides to create a Reading Evolution LINK.

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.