Artfully Teaching the Science of Reading: A Way to Empower Teachers to Help Kids by Dr. Sam Bommarito ©2026
This is the first in a blog series that is designed to encourage all sides to find out what the other side is really saying. This opening blog explains the origins of straw-man arguments on all sides and the consequences of proceeding that way. Future entries will present the hope that common ground can be found if all sides listen to one another. I will explain how learning about Artfully Teaching the Science of Reading gives me hope that finding common ground is a real possibility. I hope that conversations that start with common ground can lead to better solutions to the problem of how best to teach reading.
My name is Dr. Sam Bommarito. As regular readers of this blog already know, I am a not-so-retired reading teacher. Over the course of my 60-plus-year career in education, I have taught every grade from kindergarten through graduate school. I retired from full-time teaching in 2016. I began taking on a variety of activities, including tutoring, staff development, making presentations, giving Keynote Addresses and, of course, writing this blog. When I do my blog interviews, I always wear a hat.
ABOUT ME: Of all the hats I’ve worn over my teaching career, I’ve found the one that fits me best is that of a reading teacher/reading coach. I am a centrist. I try to take a nuanced view of things. I think there is real value to considering research-based ideas from all sides in what is sometimes called The Great Debate.If you explore my YouTube Channel, you’ll find interviews with many different individuals in education. Those folks come from a variety of roles. They take a variety of positions on how best to teach literacy. Several of them are known as the top leaders in their field.
As you look over all the interviews, I hope you notice the folks interviewed include university professors, practicing teachers, and other folks with useful tools for teaching. They include people that I’ve worked with directly in various literacy projects and folks that I met through my interactions on Facebook and X (formerly Twitter). Overall, I try to get points of view from all sides of the literacy discussion. Understanding what each side is saying is an important first step for finding common ground, as I’ve said many times- no straw men. Using straw men results in pendulum swings, not progress.
My views on Dyslexia
First and foremost, I do believe there are children with dyslexia. They do need instruction beyond what is typically provided in Tier One.
Some treat dyslexic children as if being dyslexic is a deficit. I do not believe that is the right thing to do. Consider the following mother-daughter team I interviewed LINK.
The screen capture above captures the heart of what Yvanna and her daughter had to say in the interview. Yvanna began working with her daughter when her daughter was in the early grade levels. The tutoring happened at a time when many folks failed to recognize Dyslexia as real. Yvanna was told her daughter was a hopeless case. She was told the best thing to do for her would be to institutionalize her. Yvanna rejected that advice.
Instead, she took the needed training. She tutored her daughter and kept careful records of what she did. Her daughter grew up and earned a PhD. They then coauthored a book that featured a dyslexia toolkit based on what they learned during the tutoring.
The interview from which the above screen capture was taken was from the original edition of their book. I now recommend folks get the new edition, Dyslexia Toolkit: Expanded Edition.
Here is a quote from the introduction of the new edition of their book:
About 10 percent of the population is dyslexic. It’s a difference, not a disability. People with dyslexia use creative skills more heavily than non-dyslexics. They see the forests, not the trees. They see patterns, not lines. They see context, not text.
I am old enough that the terms Dyslexic and ADHD were not yet in use when I was in grade school. My self-analysis is as follows:
- I am not Dyslexic.
- However, I do think I meet all the criteria for ADHD. My brain is wired differently, and so I problem-solve differently. I see things from the perspective of the whole forest. I’ve had a chance to talk to others who tend to see the whole forest, not the trees. I think that is one of the reasons I have been so successful in helping kids who are not working up to their potential in literacy skills.
There are many success stories about folks who are Dyslexic. That is evidence that being Dyslexic can be a strength. I always share that idea and these books with parents and the child when I tutor a Dyslexic child. They love them. Nuff said
THIS NEXT SECTION CLARIFIES MY IDEAS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES SCIENCE
PLEASE LISTEN TO THE CLIP ON YouTube LINK. It only takes two minutes.
SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED
As Dr. Tyson indicates, when scientists talk, they treat each conversation as an ongoing inquiry. Truth is written in Xerox. When new observations don’t support a particular position, scientists change their minds. Go to Dr. Tyson’s site, and you can see many examples of scientists routinely challenging current doctrine in the field. Dr. Tyson comes from a group often labeled “the hard sciences.” Also check out what recent news reports are saying about the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). They indicate that it is fundamentally transforming our view of the universe. So, I’ll say it again: when it comes to science, truth is written in Xerox.
Dr. Tyson’s position makes it clear that there is no such thing as “settled science.” He is not alone in that opinion. P.D. Pearson has been quite critical of the term “settled science” (see pages 9 & 10 of his website) LINK. Some SOR folks have been accused of not being scientific in their approach. That is because SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED. Science involves inquiry and discovery. This fact makes me question the efficacy of the positions some SOR folks take, especially those writing on social media.
THE RECENT BRAIN RESEARCH FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD SUPPORTS THE NOTION THAT THE BRAIN IS FUNDAMENTALLY A PREDICTION MACHINE LINK:
What follows next is my criticism of some of the legislation being passed by various states that attempt to regulate teaching literacy. To get state approval in most states, districts must meet the state’s standards and pick programs from a list of preapproved programs. To use materials that are not on the list, the district must get a waiver. The screen capture below shows a district that was getting the best scores in the state but was denied approval because it uses the 3-cueing system. Explaining the confusion surrounding the term 3-cueing will be the topic of one of my future blog entries. One can find multiple examples of similar situations around the country. There is a simple fix to this problem. The laws governing which programs merit approval should be based on achievement test results, not on whether a program adheres to one particular model for teaching.
LINK to the above screen capture.
Recently, Rachel Gabriel reported that some districts are showing “buyer’s remorse” because the programs they picked were not producing promised improvements in reading scores.
LINK to Rachel’s Substack.
How could this be? Why are the results from SOR not as promised? Is the so-called “Mississippi Miracle,” where districts report fantastic reading gains, somehow in error? Let’s investigate that question.
This is my explanation of how discourse on social media has resulted in widely held beliefs that are very much in error. What I have come to call the social media version of SOR often makes claims that are based on dichotomous thinking. The interchanges become debates, not conversations. In debates, both sides (all sides) use straw-man versions of the other side.
When a particular model for teaching gets popular, everyone starts saying their program is based on that model. However, there are many cases where programs calling themselves by that name do not follow the model. The term Balanced Literacy became meaningless because everyone claimed it, and eventually there was no longer a widely accepted definition of the term. Seidenberg has recently indicated that the same fate could await the term Science of Reading.
During the past few years, a great deal of interchange happened on social media regarding best practices for teaching literacy. I took part in those exchanges. The exchanges were often contentious. When opponents of a particular practice wanted to discredit it, they used a straw-man version of the practice. Notably, the attacks on “balanced literacy” became widely read and widely believed. Unfortunately, as I indicated earlier, a lot of what was being posted was misinformation and, in some cases, outright lies. Neither side was looking at what the other was really doing; both were using straw-man versions of their rivals. A recent Reading Quarterly Report documents what can happen because of this kind of interchange. The next screen capture is of the RRQ report on the effects of the last five or six years of this online debate:
Here is a LINK to a recent open-source article from the Reading Research Quarterly, a highly respected, peer-reviewed journal.
LINK to screen capture.
The social media debate over the past five to six years has resulted in half-truths and misconceptions becoming widely believed and being treated as fact. This is because neither side was looking at what the other was doing or accomplishing. Both sides were using straw men.
The result of these misconceptions and half-truths becoming widely believed is that programs using The Three Cueing Systems have been banned, even when they are successful. I’ll point out that the fact that they were successful calls the “failed program” label given to them into serious question. My conclusion is that using these labels is part of a public relations campaign designed to discredit the programs at any cost. (The misconceptions surrounding the term three cueing systems will be discussed in a future blog post)
LINK to this screen capture.
If we are using science and having a dialogue rather than a debate, the fact that evidence shows programs that fit within the array we call balanced literacy are being banned even when successful is of great concern. It is costing us the loss of our most experienced teachers. See this study from the University of Missouri LINK :
Andy’s book is coming out. I plan to interview him about it. I’ll also be contacting Paul; I’ve interviewed him several times already.
Now let’s look at how one project is using the concept of Artfully Teaching the Science of Reading. It is one that I am currently helping implement in South Africa. The session 8 training session I posted from the South Africa project gives you an idea of ONE WAY (NOT THE WAY) to Artfully Implement the Science of Reading. Here is a screen capture of the highlights of that project.
Here is a LINK to one of the training sessions that gives you a good idea of exactly what’s going on in the project. I hope teachers and administrators reading this will find many takeaways, things that they can use next Monday 1
I now want to mention two colleagues, each with their own website. Both are experts in using writing in a way that helps reading. Both have many great ideas for teachers.
Visit Janet Stienberg’s website LINK. She is an expert in using Writing Workshop and does on-site P.D. for several districts. One idea I learned from workshop teaching is the use of the ad hoc strategy group. These groups are formed based on classroom observation and are designed to give extra help just to those students who need it. It is a very efficient way to use small groups to teach reading/writing connections. Doing things this way addresses concerns raised that using small-group instruction in literacy is a waste of time.
Also visit Leah’s site LINK. She is also an expert using Workshop. Her website includes many resources for teachers. She also does on-site PD and conducts periodic workshops for teachers. One story I like to tell about Leah is that, although she strongly believes in and supports workshop teaching, she once reported on a district where, when she began advising the district on shaping their program. She did not have them start with the workshop model because they weren’t ready for it. This is the kind of thing that gives me hope that finding common ground might be possible.
SOR advocates on social media are also using writing to promote the symbiotic relationship between writing and teaching. Too often, that writing is in the form of a paragraph rather than at the single-word or very short-phrase level, rather than using longer running text. That does not get the kids ready for the kind of questions asked on end-of-the-year state tests. So, they can show great gains on tests of decoding but do not show gains on the kind of testing used on end-of-the-year state tests. I think this fact helps to explain the problems associated with teaching fluency in the upper grades better than some of the explanations being given by SOR folks.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Those familiar with my blog know that I am trying to encourage all sides to have conversations, not debates. That is the only way to find common ground and use it to make improvements in literacy instruction. Here is an article I wrote early on indicating that all sides often look at other sides through a straw-man mode LINK. I hope all who read this will ask themselves a very important question. What is the other side REALLY saying? Are there ideas and practices from the other side that I could find useful in my own classroom? For my own part, I am sharing this first entry with folks from both the Balanced Literacy and SOR side to get their take on whether they see any common ground.
I’ll also be talking about the grassroots movement that seems to be developing around the term “Artfully Teaching the Science of Reading.” That term properly belongs to Tim Rasinski and the others who first proposed it. The South Africa Project I have been a part of involves in-service training for teachers from South Africa. That in-service is being carried out this summer and is almost done. At least 1,000 students will be reached by the project this fall (actually, it’s this spring for South Africa!). I think that project provides a good example of artful teaching. Here is a LINK to a blog about the project. Here is a link to a video detailing what the day-to-day instruction looks like. LINK.
Over the next few weeks, I’ll be interspersing entries on this series with interviews from various individuals; David Harrison and Georga Heard are up this week. That will mean I’ll be posting two blogs a week for a while.
In the meantime, Happy Reading and Writing.
Dr. Sam
The guy in the middle taking flak from all sides
P.S. If you don’t already follow this blog, please use the information in the top right of this blog entry to do so!
P.P.S. I can’t thank the publishers of the two books used in the project enough. Both publishers gave deep discounts on the price of the two books. As a result of that, and after some other donations, we will be able to provide the teachers with the two books at no cost. See my blog entry about the project for details about the books used.
I would also like to thank Minda Marshall and her cadre. They’ve done a great job of creating and implementing a first-class professional development program this summer. They were even invited to present in Paris about what they are doing in this project. This is truly evolving into an international movement.
I would like to thank the teachers from the project who freely gave up a lot of their time in the summer just so they would be able to really help their students next term.
Finally, I would like to thank the members of the team who are implementing the research project connected to this project. They are top-notch people in their field, headed up by none other than Tim Rasinki. They are all doing this work pro bono.
It really does take the whole village to raise the child.
STAY TUNED-THERE’S MUCH MORE TO COME.
I am in the process of downloading and paying for a copy of this picture.