About P.D. Pearson’s Webinar and pushing back on Karen Vaites’ attacks on Pearson. – A Blog entry by Dr. Sam Bommarito.

Let’s start with the good news first. P.D. Pearson and R. Tierney did a webinar this past Thursday. It was entitled Fact-Checking the Science of Reading. I’m told that over 1000 folks signed up for the event. It was very well received by the participants. Here is what one participant, @Linda_Fenner had to say (used with permission):

“R Tierney and PD Pearson did an amazing job of distilling decades of reading research into the most important insights from diverse research traditions that should inform policy and instruction. Now if we can just get journalists to pay attention to the facts.”

Pearson proceeded as a real researcher should. He looked at a very wide range of evidence and then made carefully thought out (dare I say guarded?) comments about the evidence. Pearson did not try to draw conclusions beyond the data. He was careful to advocate for proceeding in a non-combative way. Pearson called for discussion, not bickering. He tried to set the stage for genuine dialogue around the topic. He specifically said that both sides should avoid using strawmen in their discussions. That means both sides (all sides?) would have to face up to the strongest version of the “opposition,” not the weakest. The bad news is that Karen Vaites, who sees herself as a parent advocate, did not view things that way. Here is what she had to say on Twitter (see the 20h Twitter post below) and what I had to say in response:

So, let’s look at the facts behind the charges around his faculties and his failure to keep up with the research. I view these charges as falling into the category of discount and discredit public relations statements. Suppose Pearson’s faculties today are as bad as Vaites implied. How is it then that he recently co-authored a well-researched book about the history of reading LINK and used the occasion of this webinar to announce the publication of the 7^th edition of Current Issues and Best Practices in Literacy Instruction?, a book he also co-authored. That book will be available in June. It contains all the latest research- research that Vaites and some of her friends seem to want to ignore. I think Karen Vaites owes P.D. Pearson a public apology for her shoot-from-the-hip, ill-considered public relations statements.

Now let’s look further at the claim that Pearson is not up on the latest version of SOR. Here are a few screen captures of slides from the webinar about the research and ideas he and his co-author considered.

They began with the premise that there is no such thing as “settled science.” In fact, they say that the term “settled science” is an oxymoron

They talked about how they prepared for this webinar:

They considered key books from the literacy field:

They considered a variety of research:

They even considered the social media debate:

By the way, there was much more in the webinar, including insights into the issues around cultural diversity. There is also the information from the two books cited earlier, which contain extensive documentation using peer-reviewed research. All this demonstrates that Pearson and his co-author made a concerted effort to consider ALL the research, including the most recent research. The real problem for what I have dubbed the social media version of Science of Reading folks is that they do not always want to consider all the research. They ignore, discount, or discredit any research that doesn’t fit their limited and limiting public relations agenda. I could use this statement as a segway into yet another US vs. THEM discussion of the Science of Reading. But that is exactly what Pearson said not to do. Pearson explicitly said that both sides should stop using strawmen. He said that both sides should be willing to talk to each other. Pearson called for everyone to follow the research, even when it leads to rejecting methods that are personal favorites but not really supported by research.

There are 1000 plus teachers who attended this webinar. I think they are ready to do that. There are thousands and thousands of teachers, researchers, and parents seeking answers based on ALL (not just some) of the research. They are willing to accept and use the kind of answers researchers have to give. Let’s not let public relations gurus like Karen Vaites derail that dialogue with public relations ploys. Instead, let’s start having serious discussions using common sense to seek out common ground and common practices. I’ve posted my hope for that kind of future once before. Here is an excerpt from one of my previous blogs, LINK. I began by asking what happened when some of the best researchers in the world tried to listen to and learn from one another. Amanda P. Goodwin, Co-Editor of RRQ, talked about that. She outlined what happened when the two special issues of RRQ were published in 2020 and 2021. Those issues looked at research from a variety of different views. She gave a link to those issues. The link allows readers to view the abstracts of all the articles from the two issues. Here is that LINK. Amanda then described how, in the review process, researchers who at first viewed themselves in different camps found themselves shifting more to the center:

“Some researchers probably started out thinking they were in different camps, but during the editing process, that changed. You know, in an academic journal like RRQ, we ask experts to review each article and give the authors anonymous feedback. A lot of them pushed the authors to say more about the gap between research and practice and to consider differing perspectives. And when they revised their articles, those researchers who started out in separate camps seemed to move more to the center and acknowledge and welcome other views. So, overall, I’d say that the experts agreed that it’s valuable to conduct various kinds of scientific research that aims to better understand and meet children’s complex and varied needs — not to insist that there’s a single, “one best” way to teach reading.”

Maybe it is time to find journalists who are willing to talk about folks who feel that it is “valuable to conduct various kinds of scientific research that aims to better understand and meet children’s complex and varied needs — not to insist that there’s a single, ‘one best’ way to teach reading.” Maybe it’s time to start listening to the whole story. Maybe it’s time to recognize just how complex and nuanced the problems we face are. Maybe it’s time for all of us to follow the example of the RRQ researchers and begin a real dialogue based on the strongest versions of all the various positions. Maybe it’s time for a reading Evolution, LINK. Dare to dream!

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

Copyright 2023 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.

I have just been invited to speak at the 2024 Wisconsin ILA convention. If you are interested in having me speak or present, contact me at bommariosam@yahoo.com

More pushback on the Social Media version of SOR: A blog post by Dr. Sam Bommarito

In last week’s blog, I talked about the major pushback that has emerged recently about what I have come to call the social media version of the Science of Reading. That version claims they have the one and only Science of Reading and that the whole issue of teaching reading is now settled. They claim that researchers have reached a consensus, and that consensus is that the social media version of Science of Reading should be implemented nationwide to the exclusion of all else. The fact is that contention has been called into question by many major researchers and educators. I talked about Amanda Goodman’s article. She is the Co-Editor of the Reading Research Quarterly. Here is the link to my review of that interview: LINK.

This week I want to call attention to several more important pieces that have been written countering the claims of the social media version of SOR. I will start by calling attention to one very important point Goodman raised during her interview:

“For instance, advocates often claim that “the science of reading” proves that it’s ineffective to use pictures and other contextual cues to help students figure out the words they’re trying to decode. Even some state literacy boards have become adamant that this is bad practice: No pictures! Teachers need to make students sound out the letters!

But their RRQ article, Donna Scanlon and Kimberly Anderson review 25 years of rigorous experimental studies in which kids were given systematic phonics instruction and also taught to use context cues to help them when they struggle to sound out words. And what they found was that kids tend to become more successful readers when they get both kinds of instruction, compared to those who get phonics alone. In short, they found that more resources are better. It’s self-defeating to insist on an either-or choice between phonics and context cueing, as though these practices were at war with each other. It’s much more helpful to treat them as complementary.”

One of my mantras has been to consider all the research before making important decisions about what reading instruction should look like. Clearly, Scanlon’s research is being discounted and ignored by some state literacy boards and state legislators. The result of this is that kids are being hurt. This week Dr. Billy Molasso, executive director of Reading Recovery, wrote a blog post entitled When Doing the Right Thing Is the Wrong Thing  LINK.

Here  are some things Dr. Molasso said that I think is worth considering:

“Even the National Reading Panel – frequently cited while justifying SOR laws – concluded that, ‘Phonics instruction should not become the dominant component in a reading program, neither in the amount of time devoted to it nor in the significance attached.’ Yet here we are, forcing teachers to swim upstream amidst mandates that go against common sense tactics to help kids access the right tools at the right moment.

Let’s be clear: when you choose which tools teachers can use, you are choosing which children to help. Banning tools is tantamount to saying the children who need those tools don’t matter, and shame on the states that have legislated to leave some children behind. (italics & underlying are mine) If you acknowledge that children deserve the right to read, your advocacy must reflect a commitment to ALL children.”

I’ve made the point many times before that following the Social Media Version of SOR helps some kids at the expense of others. The claims of public relations gurus like Emily Handford and Karen Vaites have been repeatedly challenged. Just this week, Paul Thomas posted a letter Diane Stephens wrote to the Curriculum Coordinators in South Carolina School Districts. LINK. Stephens again points out the lack of evidence supporting the social media brand of SOR.

“It is important to note that the SOR is not the same as the science of reading discussed earlier in this letter.

What reading research (the science of reading) has shown is that there are no differences in outcomes among the various approaches to teaching phonics and that a “one-size-fits-all” approach is not effective. Knowledgeable teachers know best about what instruction is needed at what time for their students. In addition, as authors Reinking, Hruby and Risko (2023) explain in their research article, phonics instruction has been shown to be “more effective when embedded in a more comprehensive program of literacy instruction that accommodates students’ individual needs and multiple approaches to teaching phonics—a view supported by substantial research. “

There simply is no research support for SOR or for a product, called LETRS, often associated with it. There have not been controlled studies in which the progress of students in classrooms taught by SOR teachers were compared to the progress of students taught by teachers whose practices were consistent with research on best practices. And there is absolutely no research which shows that LETRS is an effective instructional approach. (See HERE).”

Finally, I promised last week to talk about another recent article about the social media version of SOR. Paul Thomas wrote it. The title is FACT CHECKING SCDOE SCIENCE OF READING INFOGRAPHIC LINK. Here are some of the key points he makes:

FACT: Reading achievement in the U.S. and most states has remained essentially flat for three-plus decades. There is no credible evidence of a reading crisis.

FACT: The Mississippi “miracle” is a manufactured narrative created by the media. (Yet Karen Vaites posted these claims again this week despite Paul pointing out that the 3^rd-grade rise in scores, created in part through retention, disappeared by 8^th grade)

FACT: The NRP report is now 20+ years old, and reading research has advanced beyond the report’s findings. The report also was underfunded and incomplete and should not be viewed as “settled” science. The media and political misrepresentation of the NRP report, however, continues to mislead; the report found systematic phonics instruction increases pronunciation of nonsense words in grade one but does not improve comprehension. (Italics and underlining are mine) As well the report found systematic phonics was no more effective than W.L. or B.L.

FACT: Starting as a media movement supported by state-based dyslexia organizations, SOR has become a political movement due to its direct impact on state legislation. That movement has misrepresented the reading sciences. Further, SOR has increasingly become a marketing label for reading materials and programs, often identified as “structured literacy,” which can be scripted programs that de-professionalize teachers and impose a one-size-fits-all approach to phonics on all students.

Paul made additional points. Read his entire blog post for that additional information. All these pushbacks on the social media version of SOR have appeared at different times in different places. I thought it important to bring them together in one place. I think much of what has been said lately supports taking what I have called a centrist position LINK, LINK LINK. As I said in one of my blogs, “It’s Not Settled Science or Rocket Science, and It’s Not Your Science, It’s Our Science”. I think it is time for educators to take the great debate out of the hands of the social media gurus/spin doctors and put it back in the hands of the researchers and educators. For me, the most hopeful sign of that happening came when Amanda Goodwin (researcher) described what happened in the process of peer review for the writing of the Reading Research Quarterly articles:

Some researchers probably started out thinking they were in different camps, but during the editing process, that changed. You know, in an academic journal like RRQ, we ask experts to review each article and give the authors anonymous feedback. A lot of them pushed the authors to say more about the gap between research and practice and to consider differing perspectives. And when they revised their articles, those researchers who started out in separate camps seemed to move more to the center and acknowledge and welcome other views. So, overall, I’d say that the experts agreed that it’s valuable to conduct various kinds of scientific research that aims to better understand and meet children’s complex and varied needs — not to insist that there’s a single, “one best” way to teach reading.

I think that is a good thought on which to end this conversation- not to insist that there’s a single, “one best” way to teach reading. Instead, let’s consider ideas from all the different sides. Let’s really listen to all sides- just as the RRQ researchers did. Let’s try something that’s never been tried in the whole history of teaching reading. Let’s try stopping that pendulum in the middle for a while and see what happens. Dare to dream!

Next week I will resume my interviews. I have some good people lined up, including Gravity Goldberg and Dr. Chase Young. Until then:

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

Copyright 2023 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.

P.S. Don’t forget the upcoming webinar from P.D. Pearson. There will be lots to unpack from that webinar LINK.

What Dr. Amanda Goodwin, Co-Editor of RRQ, had to say about the Social Media version of SOR  A blog post by Dr. Sam Bommarito

There has been major pushback over the past few weeks about what I have come to call the social media version of the Science of Reading. That version claims they have the one and only Science of Reading and that the whole issue of teaching reading is now settled. They claim that researchers have reached a consensus, and that consensus is that the social media version of Science of Reading should be implemented nationwide to the exclusion of all else. The fact is that contention has been called into question. Let’s see what Amanda Goodman, the Co-Editor of the Reading Research Quarterly, had to say about this topic in a recent interview in the KAPPAN. Here is the link to the article: LINK.

A reminder that the Reading Research Quarterly (RRQ) is a peer-reviewed, widely respected reading journal. The International Reading Association publishes it. It sets the gold standard for reading research journals. It was first published in 1948 and has been published for over 70 years. Its standards are the highest in the field. Many of my friends who publish research about the reading field view the publication of an article in this journal as a career milestone. Only the best of the best are published in this journal. That said, let’s see what the current co-editor of the RRQ had to say about the consensus that seems to have developed around the concept of the Science of Reading. Here is one of several article highlights. These highlights were included in the article to encourage the sharing of Amanda Goodman’s key ideas:

This analysis of what researchers have to say about the SOR contrasts sharply with the social media version of SOR. Here is what Amanda had to say about that:

“You know, the version of the science of reading that has been presented in the media is very narrow, focusing mainly on alphabetics, phonics, and word reading. It’s also pretty directive, telling teachers that if they want to help kids learn to read, then they should do this, not that. But when we invited researchers to propose and submit articles on the science of reading, that’s not how they defined it. In all, we received about 90 article submissions and published 50 of them, many written by leading experts in reading and literacy, and we did not hear calls for the sort of narrow, directive approach to reading instruction that journalists and policy advocates often promote.”

Amanda goes on to talk about the two special issues about the SOR published by RRQ in 2020 and 2021. She gives a link to those issues. The link allows readers to view the abstracts of all the articles from the two issues. Here is that LINK. Amanda described how, in the process of peer review, researchers who at first viewed themselves in different camps found themselves shifting more to the center:

“Some researchers probably started out thinking they were in different camps, but during the editing process, that changed. You know, in an academic journal like RRQ, we ask experts to review each article and give the authors anonymous feedback. A lot of them pushed the authors to say more about the gap between research and practice and to consider differing perspectives. And when they revised their articles, those researchers who started out in separate camps seemed to move more to the center and acknowledge and welcome other views. So, overall, I’d say that the experts agreed that it’s valuable to conduct various kinds of scientific research that aims to better understand and meet children’s complex and varied needs — not to insist that there’s a single, “one best” way to teach reading.”

Here are two more article highlights for you to consider:

As you can tell from these highlights, much more valuable information can be found in this article. I highly recommend that readers take the time to read the full article. My readers know that I have long advocated for taking a centrist position around the whole issue of how to teach reading LINK. I view this article as reinforcing taking that stance. I’ve mentioned before that the best advice I’ve seen about how to use research came from Nell Duke. She says to follow the research and see where it leads. I’ll say again- reviewing the research from these two special RRQ issues would be a giant step in that direction.

Next week I’ll look at another recent article about the social media version of SOR. Paul Thomas wrote it. The title is FACT CHECKING SCDOE SCIENCE OF READING INFOGRAPHIC.   If you want to look at it early, here is the LINK.

Happy Reading and Writing.

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

Copyright 2023 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.

P.S. Don’t forget the upcoming webinar from P.D. Pearson. There will be lots to unpack from that webinar LINK.

Dr. Andy Johnson discusses various issues around the reading wars: An interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

In this interview, Dr. Andy Johnson talks about various issues dealing with the reading wars. He focuses on dispelling misinformation and myths, which are currently being presented by the folks supporting the social media version of the science of reading. In addition, he tells us about his newest reading book- Designing Meaning-Based Interventions for Struggling Readers. That book is a treasure trove of information and practical ideas for teachers working with those readers. Here is Dr. Johnson’s biography LINK:

Here is a link to the YouTube interview:

Dr. Andy Johnson’s YouTube Channel LINK.

Dr. Andy Johnson’s Reading Instruction Show LINK.

Dr.  Andy Johnson’s Newest Reading Book LINK

Dr. Andy Johnson Twitter – @axe_andrew

Link to Dr. Johnson’s next webinar LINK.

Final Thoughts About This Interview.

Dr. Johnson has long been an advocate of using research, all the research, to inform us on the best ways to teach reading. There has been a growing tide of voices like Dr. Johnson’s, voices that are pushing back on the misdirection and misinformation given by the social media version of SOR. In addition to attending Dr. Johnson’s webinar, also have a look at the upcoming webinar by P.D. Pearson Fact-Checking the “Science of Reading”: Claims, Assumptions, and Consequences LINK. I’ll also be sharing Richard Allenton’s ideas around that same subject. Be on the lookout for what I say about Allenton’s article published in the Tennessee Reading Journal. In sum, it’s time to try something new. That something new is using ideas from all sides to create a Reading Evolution LINK.

Happy Reading and Writing.

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

Copyright 2023 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.

A great way to end poetry month. A rerelease of The Missouri Reader’s poetry issues by Dr. Sam Bommarito.

You may know that one of the hats I wear is that of the Co-Editor of The Missouri Reader.  The Missouri Reader has been publishing for over 40 years now.  We publish between two and three issues a year. We are peer edited and have a highly qualified review board.  We do publish some very well-known literary leaders, but we also give teachers a chance to publish right alongside them. Most often, those teachers are graduate students at one of our state’s universities, though we do accept articles from all over the United States (and Beyond!). Details on how to submit are always found on the last page of each issue of the journal.  

Here is an excerpt of what I had to say when we first released this special poetry edition:

“Readers. I now want to editorialize a bit.  Please indulge me. It relates to the theme of our special issue, Poetry- a Path to Literacy.   Lately, I’ve been wondering aloud why we have so many people writing about the need to return to joy in the reading and writing field (lots of titles about that lately). Why do we have a famous video called Don’t Read Like a Robot.  Why are some so determined to turn reading into a race?  Do we really need a nation of Robot Readers and Auctioneers? Or do we need a nation of students who know how to read like Storytellers? Storytellers around those long-ago campfires were the beginnings of what we now call civilization.  The historian in me thinks they were at the heart of the movement that separated humankind from the rest of the living creatures on our planet. To read a story like a storyteller, you’ve got to understand the characters, know what they act like, and what they should sound like. I think that is why Rasinski calls prosody the gateway to comprehension. To read like a storyteller is to return to the most basic of basics.  All the authors contributing to this very special issue of our journal hope that our readers find the ideas and resources in this issue that will help them get back to the real basics. Learning to read poetry well is one of the key things that make up what I call the real basics. I also hope the readers of this issue will find much of what they need to help create a nation of readers who know how to read like storytellers. Perhaps then we would not have to worry about how to bring joy back to all aspects of literacy. The answer is so very simple. Read (and write) because you want to. Let your children do the same.

Pardon me, it’s nighttime and I suddenly feel the urge to build a very nice campfire. Then I think I’ll get out a copy of the new journal. I hear there are some wonderful things to read in it, poems and such. I hear that there’s a whole world of joy to find if you’re just willing to look. Please do have a look. You deserve some joy and so do your children.

POETRY!”

Here is the link to the poetry issue of The Missouri Reader:  https://joom.ag/o1ta

It has been four years since we first released the poetry issue. We also followed up with another special issue on poetry which gave 55 ideas on things to do during poetry week LINK.

As I share these two special editions with you, I want to take the time to give a very special thank you to David Harrison. Doing these two issues was his brainchild. Over the past two decades, David has made numerous submissions to our journal.  Of course, the most significant involves our most read issue of all time, the poetry issue, which is the topic of this blog post. He has published numerous poetry collections and collaborated with Tim Rasinski on widely used scholastic books that allow students to use poetry as part of doing word ladders  LINK, LINK. David does a regular poetry activity for teachers and students on his blog/Facebook page LINK. Not only is David a well-published poet, but he also advocates for using poetry in education both in our state and on the national level. He is a widely recognized leader in literacy. Because of his work in literacy, he has a school named for him in Springfield, Missouri. He is the recipient of this year’s literacy award from the state’s ILA organization, The Missouri Literacy Association. In sum, David is a well-published poet, an advocate for using poetry in education and has many recognitions for his literary work. As we rerelease these two issues of The Missouri Reader, I want to give a shout-out to David for all he has done for our journal and all he has done over the years to help folks see how very important poetry is.

Happy Reading and Writing!

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the storyteller/poet/singer-songwriter)

P.S. Next week, I will resume doing interviews beginning with an interview with Dr. Andy Johnson about his new book and his latest podcast.

Copyright 2023 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely the view of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

More thoughts about the social media version of Science of Reading by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Last week’s blog about pushing back on the social media version of Science of Reading was well received. It had well over 4000 views in less than a week. It seems that there is a great deal of interest in the centrist point of view about reading. That view differs sharply from the views presented by some of the social media gurus, including Emily Hanford and Karen Vaites. My blog made the case that the story being told by these social media pundits is incomplete and misleading. Remember that both these folks are, first and foremost, public relations people. They are adept at making the best case for their product. In this case, that product is something called structured literacy. Unfortunately, part of the way they are making their case for selling this product is by claiming the issues around the current discussions about how to teach reading are all settled science. I must respectfully beg to disagree. Some researchers say it is all settled. Louise Moats is chief among the researchers making this claim. However, there are many well-known, well-respected, well-published researchers that say otherwise LINK, LINK, LINK LINK. In addition to those researchers mentioned earlier, P.D. Pearson has also levied some major criticisms of what was being said in the press and on social media LINK. Recently he posted this:

Remember that Pearson was the architect of the idea of teaching using the gradual release of responsibility. That is the I do (teacher demonstrates), we do (teacher partners), and you do (student internalizes the information/strategy). This makes the student responsible for their own learning. Nell Duke and others used that model to improve students’ reading performance by teaching comprehension strategies using gradual release. Duke has several decades of research demonstrating that doing this significantly increases reading scores. Yet, based on the work of Willingham, some SOR advocates are saying to reduce the time spent teaching reading strategies. There is an apparent division within the SOR world on this point. For instance, Shanahan has questioned whether drastically reducing the time spent teaching comprehension strategies is wise. Read his blog post entitled The Spirit is Willingham, but the Flesch is Weak. In addition, Shanahan has questioned the notion of putting phonics first. See his blog post entitled What do you think of “phonics first” or “phonics only” in the primary grades?. My overall point here is that it is not settled science, and taking the pronouncements of the social gurus as undisputed fact is not merited. In fact, some researchers are saying that those pronouncements are actually harmful LINK.

This week, I’ve gotten several pieces of good advice for improving the Talking Points document. I’ll be incorporating those into version 2.0 of that document. I expect that it will be ready early this summer. I’ve also come across several more good sources of information about the discussions about the best ways to teach reading. I wanted to share those with you now.

Helen Prouix posted this on Twitter this week:

Here is what you will find if you use this LINK:

In addition to the podcasts above, they also include links to many research articles. Here is a sample:

Please note that the links in the screen captures above will not work. However, all the links shown here will work if you go to the site. I highly recommend visiting this site if you want to defend the centrist position about the Science of Reading.

Dr. Andrew Johnson has written extensively about several educational topics, including the Science of Reading and LTRs.

Here is the link to his YouTube channel. LINK. These screen captures will show you what you will find if you visit this link. BTW I’ve arranged an interview with Dr. Johnson. Be on the lookout for that in the coming weeks.

Dr. Johnson is having a webinar on April 27th. Here is a link to that webinar LINK.

Also, here is an addition to Dr. Johnson’s posts. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:share:7055591034814173184/

My Talking Points document is one page on purpose. If you want a longer document, look at this one from Crossland Literacy. With their permission, I’ve downloaded their PDF into my blog’s sharefolder LINK. You’ll find it right next to the Talking Points pdf. The screen capture below shows the table of contents for the PDF. There are many links to information that will help you defend the centrist position.

Finally, most of you are aware of the extensive writings of P.L. Thomas. Here are links to two of his most recent blogs. LINK, LINK.

IN CONCLUSION

Knowledge is power. By consolidating the information from around the internet into one place, I’m trying to empower those of you who feel that taking a centrist stand is the best course of action in the current reading wars. As you do. I ask you to take that stand in a way that does not use strawmen. As I’ve written many times, we need to use information from all sides LINK. We need to give students access to all forms of phonics, including synthetic phonics. We need to improve teacher training so teachers can teach students how use all forms of phonics. We need to improve teacher training so they know how to teach comprehension in a way that results in students internalizing comprehension strategies. We need to teach students in a way that results in them becoming lifelong readers and writers. We need to recognize that all forms of teaching reading have limits and limitations, even those forms that we prefer the most. If we can do that, perhaps there can finally be a Reading Evolution.

Until next week- Happy Reading and Writing.

Dr. Sam Bommarito, aka the centrist who, uses ideas from all sides to inform his teaching.

Copyright 2023 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely the 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.

PPS- Feedback on possible corrections or additions to the Talking Points document is still welcome. Don’t hesitate to get in touch with me at bommaritosam@yahoo.com and include the word “Feedback” in the subject. I hope to complete version 2.0 by the start of this summer.

Pushing back on the social media version of the Science of Reading by Dr. Sam Bommarito

My regular readers know that I am a centrist. As we deal with the issues of teaching reading, I believe we should use the best of what all sides have to offer as we figure out what we should be doing for our kids. I also believe that decisions about that need to be made at the local level. Local school boards know their population best. They are in the best position to implement policies that fit local populations. I truly believe that one size does not fit all. See last week’s blog for details LINK. 

I have a 50-plus-year career as a teacher and a teacher of teachers. I’ve taught every grade from kindergarten through graduate school. I’ve watched the pendulum swing back and forth many times during the past five decades. What has been happening is that we keep going from one extreme to the other, never stopping in the middle. Inspired by the writings of P.D. Pearson LINK, I have become convinced that we need to try something that’s never been tried before. We need to try Pearson’s Radical Middle LINK. Here is a brief excerpt from that document (the underlining is mine).

“In this ecological approach, balance is not a matter of evening the score; instead, it is a matter of assembling an array of skills, strategies, processes, and practices that are sufficiently rich and synergistic to guarantee a full and rich curriculum for all students (one that, incidentally, would honor tenets 4- 7 in my list of tenets).”

In the latest iteration of the reading wars things have become especially antagonistic and combative. A group has emerged claiming they have the one and only solution to reading problems. They ignore decades of research around the origins of reading problems, and instead, they lay those problems at the feet of the folks promoting balanced literacy. They oversimplify and misdirect. Their followers have taken to attacking teachers who fail to follow their version of SOR. These attacks are mean-spirited and have the effect of quelling any dialogue about best practices in reading. This group seeks to replace all that has come before with its brand of the science of reading. Some of their key leaders are experts at public relations and have been creating a one-sided public relations campaign designed to sell their product and discredit all others. In effect, they are creating a one-sided monologue where only their views are considered. Many researchers have been pushing back on the views of this group and their leaders LINK, LINK,  LINK. These researchers have found that following the social media version of the Science of Reading does more harm than good LINK. If this group is allowed to ban all but their methods successfully, the result will be yet another swing of the pendulum, a very costly swing. That is because the methods they are pushing have been tried in the past and did not work for everyone. Consider the information from this video created by George Hruby, the University of Kentucky LINK. As he indicates, science is a process of discovery. I encourage the readers of this blog to take that point to heart as they think about the information I am about to present.

I thought it important for teachers and other educators to have information that helps push back against the disinformation spread through this one-sided public relations campaign. Accordingly, with the help of several colleagues, I have put together a pdf. A screen capture of that pdf can be found below. The links on the screen capture do not work. To get the full document with working links, please download the pdf found in this sharefolder LINK.  

Please use this document in the spirit in which it is presented. It is not saying that balanced literacy (or any other approach) is without limitations. Many things do need to be addressed in the current circumstances. Most important is the need to get the right kind of phonics to each student (most need synthetic, but some do need analytic- more on this point in future blogs). We need to consider things like the science of reading comprehension LINK, LINK, Scanlon’s work around using context as a part of problem-solving unknown words  LINK, and Duke & Cartwright’s active view of reading  LINK. However, dialogue around such things is impossible when one group forces its views on everyone else through ill-advised legislation. Good teachers are being attacked even when their methods are successful. Good programs are being banned, even when they are getting good results. That situation needs to be remedied. I hope getting the information in this handout out to educators and legislators can help do that. I’ll end with a thought from my Literacy Today article- lets Talk More, Argue Less LINK. Consider ALL the research. Let’s be ready to admit that all methods (including our favorite ones) have limits and limitations. Have a great weekend, everyone!

Dr. Sam Bommarito, aka the centrist who, uses ideas from all sides to inform his teaching.

Copyright 2023 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely the 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.

PPS- Feedback on possible corrections or additions to the Talking Points document is welcome. Don’t hesitate to get in touch with me at bommaritosam@yahoo.com and include the word “Feedback” in the subject. I hope to create a version 2.0 by the end of this summer.

Using Common Sense to find Common Ground: A Centrist take on the Reading Wars. By Dr. Sam Bommarito

In the past two months, I’ve presented at several conferences. I talked about finding common ground in the discussion about the teaching of reading. I want to share some of the points I’ve been making as I talked to educators nationwide.

POINT ONE– making sense of the reading wars has been very important to me for a long time. It began with my doctoral thesis around the last iteration of the reading wars. One of my big takeaways from that study was that there was more common ground than most folks realize. See this slide:

POINT TWO- The current discussions about the best ways to teach reading are marred by significant misrepresentations made by what I have termed the social media version of Science of Reading. I firmly believe their claims do not represent the true science of reading. Many well-credentialed researchers agree.

POINT THREE- Especially in the arena of the social media talk around SOR, all sides must avoid the use of strawmen. As we carry out those discussions, we must learn to talk, not bicker.

As indicated, we need to learn to talk, not bicker, as we discuss social media.

POINT FOUR- When seeking common ground, we must especially look at the ideas of folks who seem to appeal to people from all sides of this debate.

POINT FIVE– When seeking common ground, we also need to carefully pay special attention to researchers who follow the research and use the research from the past as a springboard for future research.

As we build on previous research, we must use the best, most high-quality research possible.

IN CONCLUSION-

This is the message I have been trying to spread for the past few weeks. It says to consider the ideas from all sides. Allow districts to use the best of those ideas. Acknowledge that choices about adopting what course of action should be taken are best made at the district level since districts are in the best position to know the needs of their particular unique populations. In this next slide notice what I view as the hope for the future of education.

NEXT WEEK: I will continue this discussion and provide some resources for you to consider as you think about ways to cut through the gordian knot that has been the Reading Wars. Until then, Happy Reading and Happy Writing!

Happy Reading and Writing.

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

Copyright 2023 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s view and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

Rocking on with Eric Litwin at the Young Years Conference in Missouri by Dr. Sam Bommarito

The recent Young Years Conference in Missouri was an amazing experience for me. I got to speak at the conference, but more importantly, I got to hear Eric Litwin “speak” as the afternoon keynote on Friday. A little background. I first met Eric at an all-day workshop that he did at the Tan-Tar-A Conference Center several years back. So, meeting him again at the Tan-Tar-A conference center this year brought things to a full circle. In the years since we first met, we have become good friends. It has been amazing to share ideas about literacy with him, especially early literacy. He is, after all, a world-renowned figure. His songs have brought joy to many children worldwide, and his materials have been a source of good teaching for many teachers- myself included. Let’s talk about what he did at the conference.

What he did was AMAZING. For most of the hour I spent at his session, he read from some of his many books. He was also doing songs from those same books. Early on, I got the feeling I was at a rock concert. His audience (over 1,200 early childhood teachers) were engaged from the outset. He quickly taught them “the moves.” If you’ve ever seen Eric perform, you just don’t read from an Eric Litwin book without using the moves. He also seamlessly got us all to read like storytellers.

“Did Pete cry? – oh no! He just kept moving along and singing his song.”  

When I began this essay, I put the word “speak” in parathesis as I talked about his keynote because he did much more than just speak. He got audience members to come up and take part in reading each of the books he did. They also came up in groups and used the “moves” that Eric created for each book. All in all, as a rock concert, I would have to give this performance the very highest of ratings. The room was filled with electricity from start to finish. However, this was more than just a performance by an incredibly talented singer/songwriter. It was also a teacher doing a masterful job of teaching teachers how to teach.

Consider this. Eric built the whole performance around the acronym HELPFUL. Let’s look at the following slide.

“

Eric believes literacy instruction can be optimized by immersing children in all the elements of HELPFUL. During his presentation, he used several of his most popular books/songs to show the teachers how they could optimize instruction. So, as the teachers joined in the performance, they were also learning some important lessons. They learned how to make every minute count. Learning “the moves” leads directly to immersion and engagement. As I said, masterful teaching.

They learned about the causes of many of our reading problems. He took the time to share some statistics about the root causes of those problems:

They learned about Classroom Call Outs:

And they learned the most important lesson of all:

As a teacher, I was impressed with the way Eric masterfully wove the reading/singing of his book in a way that showed teachers how to create an immersive reading environment.

Besides children’s books, Eric has also authored a professional development book. The book is entitled The Power of Joyful Reading. Eric talked briefly about his professional development book. It is a book for both teachers and parents. In the book, he and his co-author, Dr. Gina Pepin, make a compelling, research-based case for parents and teachers to encourage students to want to read. He and Dr. Pepin talk about how we can use immersion and play throughout the day to help children raise test scores and become lifelong readers. I did a separate interview with Eric, where he talked about this book. LINK. So, in addition to all the other hats he wears, Eric is also a teacher/researcher.

BTW- The interview I just linked to helped to introduce the Book Club event that the Missouri Literacy Association held in July of 2021, where we talked about The Power of Joyful Reading. Another interesting tie to Missouri is that at the time Eric wrote the book, the pandemic precluded his taking photos of kids taking part in literacy activities for inclusion in the book. MLA arranged for Julius Anthony, president of the St. Louis Black Author’s Association, to provide Eric with many of the student photos they already had on file. Eric included many of those photos in the book. So that book holds a very special place in the hearts of folks from Missouri. The book is well-done and is informed by research. Teachers from Missouri and elsewhere have found it to be very helpful in guiding their creation of optimized literacy instruction for our youngest readers. I highly recommend that you add it to your school’s professional library if you haven’t already.   

It is an understatement to say that my overall experience at the Young Years Conference in Missouri was positive. I watched a teacher of teachers and a masterful performer help teachers take their reading instruction to a whole new level. And all the time, we were having fun. Gives a whole new perspective to the term Joyful Reading. A very special thanks to Eric for permitting me to write about his presentation and to use some of his copyrighted slides. Like everyone else, I left the conference feeling recharged and ready to teach. So, I’ll leave you with a final thought from one of his most famous books:

“Keep walking and singing your song…

because it’s all good!”

Here are links to some of Eric’s Books.

The Power of Joyful Reading: LINK

Pete the Cat, I Love My White Shoes: LINK

The Poop Song: LINK  

You’ll also want to visit Eric’s website. There are free downloads, links to videos of him singing some of his favorite songs, links that show some of the moves you can use while reading his books and links to buy one of his many books.

https://www.ericlitwin.com/

NEXT WEEK:

As my regular readers know, I’ve done several presentations at conferences around the country in the past couple of months. They all addressed my quest to find common ground in the reading wars. Next week, I’ll be a speaker at a virtual conference being held in Maryland. Next week’s presentation and blog will be cumulative, hitting on all the ideas I’ve discussed lately. Here is a link to the SoMLA conference Cultivating Literacy Through Multiple Lenses. LINK. It runs for three days, from March 28^th to April 1^st. I speak on April 1^st. The conference is virtual and is open to all interested educators. Members of State of Maryland’s Literacy Association get reduced rates for the conference.

In addition, here is a link to the Missouri Dept of Education site LINK. Be sure to check in with them from time to time because they are already planning for the 51^st Young Years Conference.

So. until next week:

Happy Reading and Writing.

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

Copyright 2023 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s view and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

Memories from the conference- Eric speaking and Eric taking my wife and I to dinner after the conference. Such an incredible weekend!