Let’s try using some common sense to find common ground in the reading wars: Reflections about the RRC Community Pushback on Senator Cassidy’s Literacy Report

Nobody’s right. If everybody’s wrong

Buffalo Springfield. Song from the 60’s  LINK

My career in reading education spans over five decades. I’ve taught every grade from kindergarten through graduate school. During that time, I’ve worked as a reading specialist, staff developer, and university professor. I’ve worked in several very successful Title 1 reading programs. I have a Doctorate in reading. During my career, I’ve watched the pendulum swing many times from meaning-based to code-based instruction and back again.   The simple fact is that when you move to either of those two extremes, you help some children and fail to help others. Isn’t it about time we move to a position where we help everyone? Isn’t it about time we try out what P.D. Pearson has dubbed “The Radical Middle”?  Isn’t it about time to stop bickering LINK and start using research-based practices drawn from all sides? Isn’t it time to become a centrist LINK? I think that it is.

Getting lost in all the research swirling around this issue is very easy. Some simple common-sense guideposts are in order as we dive into the research. Draw on all the research- both quantitative and qualitative. Ensure the testing instruments used in the research you use test reading using full passages. “reading” word lists may be somewhat predictive, but if that is all you do, you will be looking at incomplete results that may cause you to reach problematic conclusions. Give weight to both the decoding aspects and meaning aspects of reading. Make sure that the research you draw on fits the circumstances and population of your local district. Include all the stakeholders in the decision-making process around literacy issues. That includes parents, teachers, administrators, and folks living in the district, just to name a few. Let’s look at the latest pushback on the rush to judgment made by some in the SOR community: That pushback comes from the Reading Recovery Community.

The link to the “media reporting is biased piece”: LINK.

The link to the RRC  post on this and other topics is LINK.

MY REFLECTIONS:

I’m glad that the RRC included the observation about the NRP panel’s report. “The impact of phonics on comprehension is limited.” And that a phonics-centric curriculum does not improve reading instruction. I’ll add to that observation that the NRP report specifically used the word balance when describing how to proceed with reading instruction. It is not surprising that this pushback on the social media branch comes from the Reading Recovery Community. In her podcasts, Emily Hanford claimed Clay’s RR program was a failure and that Clay was wrong. She supported that claim using the “discount and discredit” tactic. She discounts or discredits research demonstrating that RR has worked to help many (not all) students. There is plenty of research indicating that RR is a viable approach (not the viable approach) LINK. Hanford is on record saying that she is not a teacher or researcher. She sees herself as a journalist. See her Oct 5 post from X (formerly Twitter):

I’ll leave the matter of whether what she does qualifies as journalism to others. I will point out that she is certainly a public relations expert, and many of her tactics are those from the PR world. She has embarked on a successful scorched earth campaign to promote structured literacy (the term itself is a public relations creation LINK) to eliminate all competition. Her handling of the RR issue is one example of how she uses strawman versions of the competition and fails to look at all the research supporting the competition. The effects of that very successful public relations campaign are beginning to be seen, and they should be of great concern to anyone interested in promoting good education.

We have moved into an era where research is being weaponized LINK, where SUCCESSFUL programs are being banned LINK, where choices left to districts are so narrow that even SOR supporters like Seidenberg choose “none of the above” when considering programs from the list of sanctioned basal programs  LINK. I must wonder aloud why we need such lists, given the fact that having them strips most power from the local districts. It also seems to result in a defacto national curriculum, which in turn strips most power from states. Teachers are leaving the field in droves, LINK. Could it be that at least some of those teachers leaving are good teachers who have for years gotten good results and now find the tools they used to get those results are being banned? I get e-mails from such teachers all the time. What can we do?

What we can do is recognize that, to some degree, everybody’s wrong. Major figures like Michael Pressley have been saying that for years. My own observation is that the insistence of some folks on using analytic, inquiry-based phonics (or no phonics at all) resulted in dyslexic children not getting the synthetic phonics they needed. That was wrong. But it doesn’t justify swinging to the other extreme and effectively banning the use of inquiry-based problem-solving approaches to phonics like those being promoted by Scanlon LINK, LINK. The fact is that the history of the swinging pendulum demonstrates that moving to extremes results in nothing more than very expensive pendulum swings. Our experience with Reading First demonstrates that point. Billions were spent with the final report about Reading First, indicating that spending those billions did not improve reading scores LINK.

That brings me back to my opening point. It’s time we stopped talking at each other and instead started listening to each other. It’s time for folks from all sides to stop using strawman versions of the other side. It’s time to find the best practices from all sides and allow districts to use them to help create local curriculum. Let’s be willing to admit that our side doesn’t have THE answer. It’s time to join Bruce Howett in his quest to find the common ground LINK. It’s time to take a centrist approach to the problem of how to best teach reading. Dare to dream!

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2024 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.