Tim Pressley discusses the newest edition of Reading Instruction that Works- The Case for Balanced Teaching: An interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito
We are fast approaching Father’s Day, and I believe Tim Pressley has honored his late father’s memory and work with the very best present of all. He co-authored the newest edition of Reading Instruction That Works (5th edition). Most folks know of his father, Michael Pressley. He is the creator of the idea of Balanced Literacy. Tim & his co-authors have continued his father’s legacy with a well-written, well-researched book that both carries on his father’s work and adapts it to the current landscape of literacy instruction.
Here is some information about Tim:
Tim Pressley, Ph.D., is an associate professor of psychology at Christopher Newport University and is a faculty member for the university’s master’s in teaching program and the Center for Education Research and Policy. He received his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from Florida State University and has a background in elementary education. Before receiving his Ph.D., Dr. Pressley was an elementary school teacher, a driving force behind his research. His current research focuses on teachers’ lives, specifically the impact of COVID-19 on teachers, teacher effectiveness, and teacher burnout. His work has been published in Educational Researcher, Teaching and Teacher Education, School Psychology, and The Teacher Educator.
Additionally, he has co-authored the most recent edition of Reading Instruction that Works: The Case for Balanced Teaching. He is currently co-authoring a book focused on K-12 schools post-COVID-19 (coming late 2023/early 2024). He hopes his research gives teachers a voice on aspects impacting teacher’s lives.
Interviewing Tim was a genuine pleasure. He presents us with the real version of Balanced Literacy. He notes that his goal in this book is to update the book’s research and make the book more teacher friendly. He has succeeded in doing both. Balanced Literacy is so much more than just promoting a love of books. Tim’s explanation of the book’s content clarifies that Balanced Literacy is nothing like the strawman version of BL often given by folks attacking BL. In this newest edition, Tim outlines how Balanced Literacy includes the direct and explicit teaching of phonics and provides a complete and systematic look at how comprehension can be taught. Every chapter of the book includes great teaching practices and recent research backing up those practices. It documents the fact that Balanced Literacy (Balanced Teaching) not only works but also involves teaching children in a way that they get the instruction that fits their particular needs. He calls special attention to the newest chapter in the book. It is Chapter 9, Reading Instruction for Emergent Bilinguals, by Ana Taboada Barber. Tim is correct in his assessment that there is much new and valuable information in that chapter. Overall, this new edition of the book is both teacher-friendly and child friendly. As he notes in the interview, as a parent, he wants Balanced Literacy for his child as she grows up.
Here is a link to the YouTube interview:
Here are the talking points from the interview:
Here is a link to buying the book. When I bought my hard copy today, I also purchased the e-book copy. The cost to add the e-book is minimal. LINK
Link to Dr. Pressley’s website LINK
Link to Dr. Pressley on Research Gate LINK
Final Thoughts About This Interview.
Tim is not trying to force his views on anyone. He is not trying to pass laws outlawing all competing practices. Instead, he is presenting educators and parents with effective ways to meet the needs of their students. Tim is leaving the decision on what practices to use to the teachers and administrators to make after reviewing the considerable research presented in each chapter. It is not the strawman version of Balanced Literacy presented in some newspapers and social media accounts. It is not a one size fits all answer. It is most definitely a research-based answer. As I’ve been saying for quite some time, consider all the research before deciding your best course of action around these issues.
Ending with Mary Howard’s Inspirational words
With all the meanness and vitriol plaguing the latest discussions on the best ways to teach reading, it was refreshing to hear a voice of reason like Tim’s. In addition to Tim, my very good friend and colleague, Mary Howard, had some things to say about the current literacy world situation. I hope everyone takes the time to listen to and follow her advice. It’s time for common sense and common ground in literacy discussion.
“We are at a crossroads, my friends. The world of Literacy is not doing well, and it needs us to give it a gentle nudge back to life.”
Mary Howard, June 2023
Here is the link to her full blog entry LINK. I think you will find Mary’s thoughts both moving and informative.
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.
Bommarito defends Balanced Literacy by pointing to one book’s idealized version of it, calling that the “real” thing, and dismissing criticism of what actually happened in classrooms as an attack on a strawman. The research he cites supports the parts Balanced Literacy shares with its critics’ approach, not the parts that make it different, which are the parts in dispute. The rest is atmosphere: a Father’s Day tribute, a parent’s preference, a contrast between his side’s civility and the other side’s tone, and the suggestion that being criticized by everyone puts him in the reasonable middle. None of that is evidence that Balanced Literacy works.
Let’s break the argument down and examine it.
Let:
B = Balanced Literacy as practiced in classrooms
B* = Balanced Literacy as described in the Pressley book
Eff(x) = x improves reading outcomes
The definitional retreat
The critics’ claim concerns practice:
¬Eff(B)
Bommarito answers that B* includes explicit phonics, so critics are attacking a strawman.
But:
B* ≠ B
Eff(B*) ⇏ Eff(B)
Calling B* “the real version” goes further. It implies that any classroom practice that fails isn’t real Balanced Literacy:
∀x (¬Eff(x) → ¬Real(x))
Every failure is reclassified out of the category, so “real Balanced Literacy works” becomes unfalsifiable. This is the No True Scotsman fallacy.
The strawman charge holds only if critics are targeting B*. To make it, he would have to show that B = B* in practice, or that the critics’ evidence concerns B*. He shows neither.
Component evidence presented as package evidence
“Every chapter includes great teaching practices and recent research backing up those practices.”
At best, that establishes:
Eff(C₁) ∧ Eff(C₂) ∧ … ∧ Eff(Cₙ)
which does not entail:
Eff(C₁ + C₂ + … + Cₙ)
Components compete for instructional time. Supporting each one separately does not support the mix.
The deeper problem is that the evidence doesn’t separate the two positions. Let:
B* = S + D
where S is what Balanced Literacy shares with structured literacy (explicit phonics, comprehension instruction) and D is what is distinctive to it.
Evidence for S supports both camps equally. The dispute is entirely about D, and:
Eff(S) ⇏ Eff(D)
The comparison that matters is:
Eff(S + D) > Eff(S)
None is offered. “It documents the fact that Balanced Literacy works” is an assertion, not a finding.
The untested interaction claim
“Teaching children in a way that they get the instruction that fits their particular needs” and “not a one size fits all answer” both rest on:
∃G : Eff(B* | G) > Eff(alternative | G)
where G is an independently identifiable group of students.
No evidence for G is given.
“One size fits all” is also a strawman of the other side, which relies on screening, diagnostic assessment, and tiered intervention.
The argument to moderation
“The guy in the middle taking flak from all sides,” “consider all the research,” and “common ground” all suggest that the middle position earns credibility.
Attacked(x, H₁) ∧ Attacked(x, H₂) ⇏ True(x)
Between(x, H₁, H₂) ⇏ True(x)
Drawing fire from both directions measures position, not accuracy.
And if:
Evidence(H₁) > Evidence(H₂)
then “consider all the research” has to mean:
Weight(H₁) > Weight(H₂)
not an even split.
The irrelevant appeals
None of these bears on Eff.
The Father’s Day framing and the tribute to a parent’s legacy.
“As a parent, he wants Balanced Literacy for his child”:
Wants(Pressley, B*) ⇏ Eff(B*)
“He is not trying to pass laws outlawing all competing practices.” How a position is advocated has no bearing on whether it is true. Contrasting this with opponents who do push legislation works as an implied attack on them, not as evidence.
“Meanness and vitriol” versus “a voice of reason”:
Tone(H) ⇏ Truth(H)
What’s legitimate
If the book does teach explicit, systematic phonics, then saying it differs from the caricature is fair. The error is extending a defense of one book to Balanced Literacy as practiced.
I have replied to the concerns in this thread.