Seeking Common Ground Using Common Sense, my recent exchanges with Dr. Claude Goldenberg.

For the past 5 years, I’ve promoted the position that we should look at ALL the research in the “Great Debate”  about reading. I’ve done interviews with folks promoting different ideas and practices. I’ve been critical of folks from either side who “put blinders on”. They sometimes leave out research and sometimes define their opponents in a way that effectively creates strawmen. Here is one important conclusion I’ve reached. We need to USE ALL THE RESEARCH and draw on practices from all sides:

Figure 1

For more details on this position, please visit my previous blog post LINK.

A while back, I suggested that instead of taking sides and looking at things as a dichotomy, we should start conversations about things most of us can agree on. To that end, I recently had several exchanges with Claude Goldenberg on his substack Ending the Reading Wars Now LINK. Thanks to Dr. Goldenberg for taking the time to seek some areas of common ground (some areas of agreement).

This is the message I got back from Dr. Goldenberg:

I don’t mean to get overly optimistic (I’ve been there before). Still, one string of comments initiated by Sam Bommarito (https://doctorsam7.blog/) yielded the following, which many readers might not have seen unless they read the string of comments/discussion on the last post, “Can we talk?”

If this needs context to make sense, please see the comments there for other tidbits.

Sam’s comments are in quotes:

1. “context needs to be used in word recognition. Current laws are removing it entirely. That is a HUGE mistake.” Completely agree. (Tim does, too, btw).
2. “Frankly, the words cue/cueing have become divisive.” Agree again. 100%, or more, if it’s possible to agree more than 100%. That’s the point of the DEADLY WORDS posts I’ve been working on.
3. “When in-servicing teachers, I urge them to encourage students to use the graphophonemic information first and then cross-check it against context & syntax.” Once again, we are in agreement…
4. …. whether we call it “a “take off” point” or a “self-extending system” is less important than providing the sort of instruction that will hasten students’ getting there. What you provide in your in-services sounds like it will help accomplish that.

Common Ground

I find his statement #1 around the use of context particularly hopeful. He says that he and Shanahan feel that the current laws removing the use of context from word recognition are a bad idea. I’d love to hear more from him on that point (and I’m posting this blog entry on his site to see what he meant by that).

Rather than focusing on claims and counterclaims around “The Three Cueing System” (BTW, it is NOT a system of instruction), I think his point #2 establishes the need to stop using the term cue and to start discussing what information readers use with decoding. Most importantly, what information do readers use when the graph phonemic information fails to produce a meaningful word? That can sometimes be because the word is not spelled the way it sounds (irregular word). It can sometimes be because it is not in the reader’s current listening vocabulary. I’d especially like to clarify his views about this in light of the concept of set for variability.

Point 3 is one on which I hope teachers from many points of view can agree. Students should use grapho phonemic information first. Other information can be used to confirm the grapho phonemic information or, in the case of irregular words, can be used to start a problem-solving process.

Ground for Future Discussion

Point 4  indicates that establishing a “take-off point” or a “self-extending system” is less important than establishing practices that get us there. This misses a very important point. Folks like Mesmer indicate that using decodables is a temporary practice and should end fairly early in the reading process. Shanahan has indicated that those advocating using decodables for years and years and years based on “research” are simply making that stuff up. Ultimately, I think the time comes to take off the training wheels and start riding the bike on your own. We don’t want to under-scaffold or over-scaffold (see figure 1 at the start of this blog). I’ll end with the thought that I would like to continue the discussion with Dr. Goldenberg about the best ways to ensure we promote the creation of engaged readers. I think that is best done by allowing teachers to use both the art and science of reading to achieve that end.

I’m looking forward to the future discussions.

Happy Reading and Writing,

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

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this 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.