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)