Blast from the Past: We need less bickering and more talk. By Dr. Sam Bommarito

In last week’s blog, Michelle Ruhe had questions about what Emily Hanford has said in her podcast series, Sold a Story. Michelle feels that Emily has not told the full story. She had questions for Emily and her followers. Last week, we said that there is a lot more to unpack concerning the post. We said that Michelle and I will coauthor part two of this blog. We are still in the process of trying to get a response from Emily and her followers. Accordingly, we are not yet ready to carry out part two.

As a result, I am posting a “blast from the past” that addresses many of these same issues.

Background on today’s post: The article we are examining is one that I wrote over four years ago. At that time, the debate between the two sides was becoming increasingly contentious. I believe in listening to all points of view. That is hard to do if the opponents refuse to engage or worse yet engage in a way that tries to bypass finding common ground using common sense. The article was published in Literacy Today. Let’s have a look at what it said. Here are some screen captures of the article:

Here is how AI summarizes the article:

I would like to emphasize that the concept of considering all perspectives and utilizing research from multiple sources is something I have been advocating over the past five years.  In my blog entries, you will find interviews with educators from all sides.  Recently, some SOR individuals on social media have claimed to have found the ultimate solution, citing research that supports their conclusion. According to that line of thinking, proponents of Balanced Literacy are simply clinging to outdated ideas. However, the point of view Michelle and I are advocating indicates that every time we go to one extreme (Code-Based) or the other (Meaning-Based), the pendulum swings back to the other side. That makes it abundantly clear that neither side by itself offers help to all the kids. To help all the kids, we need to draw on ideas and practices from all sides.

Dare to dream

Dr. Sam

Copyright 2025 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. Links are provided on this page to follow the blog if you’d like to.

Michelle Ruhe, a veteran reading teacher, feels that Emily Hanford hasn’t told the full story.

An interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito.

For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Dr. Sam Bommarito (Dr. Sam). I have been in education for over 6 decades. I’ve been a High School Social Studies teacher, a Title 1 reading teacher, and a professional developer for Title 1. I’ve taught virtually every reading course required at the university level, including the content area reading course. I’m currently “retired” but I continue working in literacy. I write a weekly blog advocating for taking a centrist view in the so-called reading wars. I regularly explore social media looking for things to write about. This week I came across something exceptional. Let me share what I found:

This entry contained a concise summary of the criticisms of Hanford’s claims that have been circulating on the internet. I knew the moment I saw this post that I wanted to find out about the credentials of the person making it and to interview her to unpack what she said. Here is what I found out about her, along with a copy of the interview where she had the opportunity to fully explain her position.

Here is Michelle’s biography (taken from her blog) LINK:

YOUTUBE VIDEO OF THE INTERVIEW:

KEY TOPICS COVERED IN THE VIDEO:

Here is my analysis of the interview

In terms of her credentials, they are impeccable. She is a practicing teacher who is well-informed about all aspects of “the great debate.” She represents a group that is too often ignored in this great debate. That group consists of practicing teachers who were successful in improving students’ literacy performance. They did so by using some of the so-called “failed practices”-practices that are rooted in a constructivist approach to teaching. Unfortunately, many of these teachers have become so discouraged that they are leaving the teaching field LINK. The rest are characterized as clinging to the “old, failed methods.” Many state legislators have bought into that point of view. They are banning the use of any of these practices based on the belief that research has demonstrated that these practices have consistently failed to work. If that belief is true, then how can we explain places like Wilton, Pennsylvania. LINK?

As you will discover when you listen to the full video, Wilton is not alone in being successful, the most successful in the state, but also being banned. Michelle’s own district is caught in that same dilemma. I am very proud of the way my fellow teacher handled being in that unenviable position. Rather than rejecting Hanford’s position as wrong and hurtful, she saw it as having some merit and doing some good. In our conversation during the video, we both went on to suggest that true science requires the SOR advocates to consider modifying their position. That is a widely held belief by folks who consider themselves scientists; they believe that scientists do change their minds based on evidence. According to the world-famous physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, that is how scientists learn to think. LINK.

There is a lot more to unpack concerning the post. Because of that, next week Michelle Ruhe and I will coauthor part two of this blog. In the meantime, I hope Emily Hanford and her followers take our request seriously. Some places don’t fit your model that claims that all balanced literacy sites have failed. Doesn’t that mean it’s time to revise your model? That is the way science is supposed to work.

Happy Reading and Writing!

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

A New Brain Study Finds Reading is a Complex, Flexible Process- Implications for the Social Media version of SOR by Dr. Sam Bommarito.

A new and important study has recently been released. It is a meta-analysis of studies on the brain and its functions. Overall, the study reports data from 3031 subjects and 5444 activation peaks in a total of 163 experiments.  I briefly discussed this study in one of my latest blogs. However, now that I’ve had a chance to really look over it, I realized that this study has the potential to be a real game-changer in our thinking about how we should conduct our literacy instruction. Here is a summary of what the study was about. It is taken from the website of Dr ASKY. “Dr ASKY” refers to a LinkedIn company profile and associated individuals, including the owner, Dr. Asif Sohrab, who is an MD doctor, entrepreneur, and science communicator. This page has over 11 M followers. Here is a LINK to the quote below. Here is a link to the main Facebook page for ASKY  LINK..

Additionally, here is the link to the study that the Dr. ASKY site is analyzing: LINK. The name of that study is The ‘reading’ brain: Meta-analytic insight into functional activation during reading in adults by Sabrina Turker, Beatrice Fumagall, Philipp Kuhnke. & Gesa Hartwigsen.

My thoughts about this analysis: Of special importance in these remarks is the observation that the brain reconfigures itself depending on how complex reading is. For instance, when comparing nonsense pseudo-words, the regions accessed are the ones the SOR folks always discuss —the regions for sounding unfamiliar words. However, the evidence supports the theory that the brain uses two routes depending on familiarity. THE BRAIN ACCESSES REAL WORDS USING THE PARTS OF THE BRAIN THAT ENGAGE MEMORY AND MEANING. So, there is more to reading real words than simply storing the code. As a teacher, I think it follows that there is more to reading than simply breaking the code. In addition, silent reading invokes more than the reader simply listening to themselves sounding out words. In fact, during silent reading, the brain actually suppresses vocalization. My take as a teacher is that silent reading comprehension involves more than just listening comprehension. That calls into question SOR’s definitions of comprehension.

The Dr. Askey site goes on to criticize the fact that the common tasks used in many of the brain studies don’t fully capture the natural reading brain’s activity. It suggests that understanding these differences could enhance our understanding of reading difficulties, such as dyslexia.

MIKE DROP

The current situation on social media seems to have evolved into an “us/them” winner-take-all battle about the issue of the best ways to teach reading. The two sides are SOR (as presented in social media) and Balanced Literacy. The dialogue involves defending one side or the other. The SOR side claims that it’s all “settled science” and that SOR should replace Balanced Literacy completely. The dialogue is often contentious. The goal of the Social Media version of SOR seems to be to eliminate Balanced Literacy permanently. The fact that Balanced Literacy means many different things to many different people leaves things open to the use of strawman arguments based on Balanced Literacy at its weakest or arguments based on a complete misunderstanding of what Balanced Literacy is.

One possible outcome of this new study could be that the dialogue could become even more divisive. The study contains research-based information that directly challenges some of the interpretations of Brain Research that form the underpinnings of the media-based SOR’s point of view. Especially since we are at a time in our country’s history when many view individuals with a different point of view as evil. The potential is there for this trend to rip apart our nation.

I want to propose a different path. It is apparent that science isn’t as settled as some claimed. To resolve that, we could ask a new set of questions. Where do both sides seem to agree? Let’s do what P.D. Pearson suggested and focus on practices instead of sides. I’d like to hear from all of you about places where you think we might agree. I’ll go first and suggest that I think we can all agree that some form of systematic phonics should be a part of any literacy program. So should the teaching of comprehension strategies. That means students should learn to internalize and apply these strategies. Finally, there is a growing belief from all sides that the use of the reading/writing connection should be included in literacy lessons.   Are there practices on which we can all agree? Do you have others? I’m hoping to hear from you either through the blog or on Facebook. BTW, if you have programs you like, rather than suggest the complete program, instead pick out the practices within the program that research demonstrates are effective and be ready to discuss which students might be effective for. It’s time to find some common ground.

Dare to Dream!

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.

Using Repeated Reading & Poetry to Improve Literacy Outcomes for Children:

Today I’m turning my blog over to Tim Rasinki and David Harrison. Tim is a professor emeritus of literacy education at Kent State University. In 2021 and 2023, Stanford University named Tim as part of the top 2% of World Scientists. Tim is widely recognized as an expert on the topic of fluency worldwide. David is the poet laureate of the state of Missouri. David Harrison’s first book for children (The Boy with a Drum) was released in 1969 and sold over two million copies. The first of his long list of awards came in 1972 when he received the Christopher Award for The Book of Giant Stories. Since then, David has published ninety original titles that have sold millions of copies. David has also collaborated with Tim on several publications designed for use in elementary classrooms. They will be discussing the use of some of those materials during the webinar. I am very grateful to Tim and David for providing this free on-demand webinar. I believe elementary teachers will find useful ideas, materials, and lesson plans that can be adapted for use across a variety of grade levels. The links that follow include one to immediately view the entire webinar and a link to a share folder containing information about supporting fluency instruction. Please enjoy what I hope is the first of many webinars provided through this blog.

Happy Reading and Writing,

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

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed in the blog are solely this author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

The Webinar is Copyright 2025 by Tim Rasisnki and David Harrison.

Link to watch Webinar

Link to the sharefolder LINK