A concerned parent speaks out about the problems inherent in an “all green” SOR program she feels is failing her son and many other children in his school. Blog post by Dr. Sam Bommarito

I found this compelling post on my Facebook page this week. Here is the full text of the post (used with permission):

The Steinhardt link from item 1) above LINK

My initial reaction is that this is exactly what one would expect to happen when folks move to one extreme or the other on the meaning-based vs. code-based approaches to reading. I’ve posited many times that the reason for the pendulum swings that have been a key characteristic of the reading world during the past half-century or so is that when one goes to either of the extremes, there are children for whom that extreme fails to work LINK, LINK, LINK. When we went through the period where meaning-based approaches, which often used analytic phonics, dominated the field- the system failed many children, especially dyslexic children. However, when one puts into place a code-based system with heavy reliance on synthetic phonics, those children who thrive on an inquiry-based, systematic program of analytic phonics are not helped. I wrote a blog post on that very point a while back entitled “A Tale of Two Readers” LINK. I’ve said many times that solving the problems of one set of children by creating problems for another is not the best way to proceed.

Recently, I’ve written about the need to match the child so they receive the kind of decoding instruction that fits them the best LINK. I pointed out there are different ways to teach phonics; see this informative ILA brief explaining approaches to phonics for the details about that. LINK. I’ve interviewed quite a few folks in the literacy field about different approaches to teaching decoding. Here is a small sampling of those, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK. These interviews include folks from all sides of the spectrum in terms of how to best succeed in the business of teaching reading. In addition, I’ve pointed out the criticisms leveled at those who think providing background knowledge/vocabulary instruction is sufficient for students to make meaning from what they are reading. There’s much more to developing reading comprehension than simply providing background and vocabulary  LINK.  Background and vocabulary are necessary but not sufficient.

Unfortunately, the whole issue of teaching decoding in particular and reading/reading comprehension in general has become politicized LINK. Critics like Rachel Gabriel indicated that some folks in the reading world have weaponized the discussion LINK. Other critics point to the misinformation/disinformation being spread about the reasons behind the reading problem LINK, LINK. Sadly, the situation has degenerated to the point where programs that work and work well are being effectively banned. This recent newspaper article says it all LINK.

In the rush to replace all that has come before with “Science of Reading Based Instruction,” some problematic programs are being implemented. I think the program Kate calls into question is one example of that. In my previous blogs, I’ve pointed out that terms like the science of reading and balanced literacy are umbrella terms. Too often, this leads to things being called SOR or Balanced Literacy, which are, in truth, each of those things at their worst. Mark Seidenberg has raised serious questions about what the Science of Reading really means and what counts as the Science of Reading LINK. As I say that, I point out that,  to my knowledge,  he has said nothing about the particular program Kate criticizes.

I think Kate’s critique of the program is well done. Many programs being put in place in the name of the science of reading simply don’t pass muster. Classroom instructional time is a zero-sum game. Overdoing code instruction (e.g., 45-plus minutes looking at slides, no minutes of reading authentic text) or giving code instruction that won’t benefit the child can easily lead to underdoing (undoing!) the comprehension part of the reading program. How much phonics instruction is needed? What kind of instruction would best serve the children being taught? Is what is being read worth reading? It is self-evident that in her child’s case, Kate is providing the kind of instruction that is really needed. She is taking into account and building on what her child already knows. But what of the other children?

Kate- I think you have taken the important first step by pointing out the shortcomings of the adopted program. Demand information on outcomes and make sure all the relevant outcomes are measured. That means decoding, comprehension, and cultural responsiveness. Ask the powers that be to allow the lessons being given in this program to be given behind the glass so that those deciding on whether to keep the program get a firsthand look at what the program’s instruction actually looks like. I’ve had many reports that teachers and administrators alike are shocked at what they see when this is done. Make sure the tests used to evaluate the program involve full tests of comprehension and not just “reading” word lists or unconnected text. Ask what they will do if synthetic phonics fails to help some children (and that will certainly happen). What will be done next? Too often, the answer in places like England and Australia has been to do even more synthetic phonics.

The most important thing you can do, Kate- is to stay in the field and keep trying to help the children. Don’t let these circumstances drive you from the field. Follow people like P.L. Thomas LINK, Andy Johnson LINK and Rachel Gabriel on X (formerly Twitter) @RacheGabriel. Listen to their ongoing advice. Join Andy’s literacy group, the International Literacy Education Coalition (ILEC). Write me directly for details. They meet regularly, share information, and provide pushback on the misinformation often found in social media LINK.

This week, the Mid-Hudson Reading Council (a local chapter of the NYS Reading Association) invited me to speak at a virtual event they are planning next Thursday. Information about how to register can be found in this LINK. NYSRA members are free; there is a $15 fee for non-members. Hope to see you there. And thanks so much for having the courage to share your concerns.

Until next week- Happy Reading and Writing.

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

Copyright 2024 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.

The registration deadline has been extended- there is still time to sign up.

Kate just created this loom message about this topic. Please have a look and listen- LINK.

A Message to the Teachers and Educators of Milwaukee (and beyond)- Congrats on a Job well done: My takeaways from the WSRA Conference

This has been an amazing week. It seems my professional life has come full circle. It was five years ago this month I began writing this blog. One of my first blog entries was made from a hotel room in Missouri. It was written during the Write to Learn conference, where I was making a presentation about literacy. A lot has happened since then. In addition to talking about literacy issues from all sides and op-eds, I’ve added a YouTube channel, LINK. The entries on that channel include the interviews done as part of the blog. Those interviews now include major figures from the literacy world.

Tonight, I am again sitting in a hotel room. This one is situated in Milwaukee. The hotel has a skywalk that connects to the Baird Center. That is the same convention center that will soon be hosting the Republican Convention.  I am again writing a blog entry. It will talk about what I learned at this conference. It’s Deja Vu all over again. As I said, professional life has come full circle.

Let me tell you a little about the Wisconsin State Reading Association (WSRA) conference. It attracted nearly 900 educators this year. The line-up of speakers at the conference was amazing. It included folks like Peter Afflerbach, George G Hruby, Jeffery D. Willingham, Frank Serafini, Ralph Fletcher, Carl Anderson, Kelly Gallagher, Patrick Harris II, and Dr Towanda Hariss, just to name a few. How did this state conference, one that rivals national conferences in its scope, come into being this year? The answer is that it is the creation of full-time teachers who still found the time to do the volunteer work necessary to create and carry out this amazing endeavor. It is volunteerism at its best. It is one of the many reasons for me to say congrats on a job well done to these hard-working, dedicated educators. Here is a picture of me with the Conference Chair, Norm Andrews, and the WSRA 2023-24 President, Ryanne Deshane.

As I’ve already indicated Bruce and Ryanne are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the volunteer teachers who put together this conference. Teachers matter, teachers care, and teachers need to be empowered.

For my part in the conference, I did several presentations where I talked about some tough literacy issues. Here are some pictures from my presentations.

My recurring themes during these talks included reminding folks that all sides of the great debate should avoid cherry-picking evidence and using strawman versions of the other sides.

I also reminded teachers that what many futurists say is right with American education is that our students come out as problem-solvers. BTW this is an idea I first heard at the Write to Learn Conference in Missouri. When I heard Dr. Zhao speak at the Write to Learn conference a few years ago, he made the point that one of the things other countries like about American education is that our students tend to come out as problem solvers and thinkers. There are a lot of valuable takeaways that can be made from his book. LINK

My takeaways from this conference require a book, not a blog entry. But the upshot of it all is this- that the teachers there were knowledgeable, often successful and they care deeply about the kids. My favorite part of the conference was listening to the teachers as they took part in the turn-and-talk activities in my sessions. They talked extensively about their successes. They know how to help students become problem solvers/meaning makers. They were hard-working, dedicated, and knowledgeable.

Unfortunately, they also had stories to tell about how current trends in education are stripping way power from teachers and local districts and are moving us back to ideas that have failed us in the past. By the way, I sensed most of the teachers I talked to were centrists, willing and able to use ideas from all sides. But unfortunately, we are once more shifting to one of the extremes.  In this current swing, we are shifting to a mainly code-emphasis approach to literacy. Reading First did that, cost billions and didn’t give the desired results. See Dr. Hruby’s entertaining video about that point LINK. In the history of reading, we have done this many times, shifting from meaning-making to code-breaking and back again. Every time we shift to one extreme or the other, we fail to reach some of the kids. I sense the teachers I talked to are worried that no one is really listening to them. No one cares that they are being forced to drop methods that work. From my perspective, the teachers at the conference were, first and foremost, centrists. They are part of Pearson’s Radical Middle. I wish all of you could have heard them talk about their successes and about the concern that current movements are going to strip them of the tools they need to make those successes happen. To be successful, they need to be able to draw from both meaning-based and code-based practices, but in the current climate, that is becoming impossible.

I’ll be busy with two other presentations in the next few weeks.  These include the MHRC Mid-Hudson Reading Conference  (virtual) and the Write to Learn Conference . I hope to see you at one of them. Stay Tuned!!! Great interviews coming up (I’ve made a lot of good contacts at the conferences I’ve attended lately.  Expect more op-eds about the topic of best practices in literacy and the current rush to legislate based on not ready for prime-time research and ideas.  

So, I’ll end by saying- Kudos to the teachers and educators in Milwaukee. Kudos for your volunteerism.  It has produced a conference normally only seen at a national level. Kudos for bringing together a set of speakers who represent ideas from many sides. Kudos for staying in our profession at a time when that is a very hard thing to do. Most of all, Kudos for the many successes you talked about at the conference. Sooner or later, it is my hope that folks will start including dedicated, successful teachers in the dialogue about what we need to be doing in education. My advice- let’s join these centrist teachers.  We need to use ideas from all sides. Let’s join P.D. Pearson in the radical middle. Dare to dream!

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

Copyright 2024 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.

My Takeaways from LITCON: Insights into the current state of the Literacy World by Dr. Sam Bommarito.

LitCon was amazing this year.  I was pleasantly surprised by the reception I got from some of my followers- thanks to my friends from Chicago for the incredibly kind remarks at the elevator, and to all the folks who attended my session, I think my message was well received. Let’s start with some of the highlights of what I had to say at that session. The complete ppt and supporting handouts can be found in this shareholder LINK. The PDF of the PowerPoint will have live links for all the slides shown in this blog).

One clear message was that RR WORKS!!!! It gets results in weeks, not years.

Another insight is that the amazing results that RR gets in its first year (the only year!), do stick. I detailed Billy Malosso’s report on the misinformation that had been spread about that point and the information showing that the learning does stick.

I also included some Myth-busting slides. Expect to hear much more about those in the coming weeks. During this session, I talked about the need for DIRECTLY TEACHING comprehension strategies and the 30-plus years of research indicated that doing so does improve reading performance significantly :

I was also able to attend Susan Vincent’s session, where she talked about the kinds of student texts found in each of the eras of reading and the kind of decisions teachers can/should make in deciding which of these texts to use and why. She even shared how she guides students in her university classes to make good decisions around those issues. BTW- Susan has agreed to do an interview around that topic- be on the lookout for that!

I also had a chance to hear Dr. George Hruby’s presentation as he talked about various issues including the issue of what we can learn from current brain research. Here’s a teaser- did you know that the pictures of the brain lighting up aren’t direct pictures? Those images are computer-generated and based on the data being collected. Soooo, this picture of the brain lighting up is not an actual picture that was taken directly. It is a computer-generated statistical chart. It is only as valid as the application of the data being collected and the interpretation of that data.

As I watched his presentation, I was left with the impression that in terms of what we know about what the brain is doing during the reading process, indications are that the clinical definition of Dyslexia may be in need of revision.

He also pointed out the major limits and limitations of current research about the brain. “50% of all studies in cognitive neuroscience are reporting false positives.” My take: a lot of the brain research being used as a basis for new legislation around literacy falls into the “not ready for prime time” category.

I was especially intrigued by what he said about mature readers and what the brain does when we look at mature readers.  It’s usually not letter-by-letter sounding.  I concluded that the evidence he presented shows that the brains of mature readers do not “sound out” every word as some SOR advocates claim. Rather they seem to use an additional part of the brain as they read. In the old days, we used to call that using sight words. I don’t want to get this one wrong- so stay tuned- I’ve asked Dr. Hruby to also do an interview and dig deeper into some of the points he covered in his presentation.

So. there was a lot presented and a lot to take away at this year’s LitCon. I’ll be busy with other presentations in the next few weeks.  These include the WSRA Conference, the MHRC Mid-Hudson Reading Conference and the Write to Learn Conference. Each of these conferences has a wide range of speakers with many worthwhile ideas to consider. I hope to see you at one or more of these conferences. BTW I’m using the same share folder for each conference LINK and may be adding additional handouts to them. As I said- Stay Tuned!!! Great interviews coming up, and expect more op-eds about the topic of best practices in literacy and the current rush to legislate based on not being ready for prime-time ideas.  In the meantime, I hope many of you consider the centrist call to use common sense to seek common ground as we continue exploring the best way to teach reading and writing.

Happy Reading and Writing.

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

Copyright 2024 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.

Dr. Sam is on the Road this Week. I will be presenting at LitCon.

I am on the Road this week. I will be presenting at LitCon. This is the first of four conference presentations I will be doing. So, I’ll be busy over the next few weeks presenting my ideas at various conferences, including LIT CON 2024, The WSRA Conference, The MHRC Mid-Hudson Reading Conference and the Write to Learn Conference. Each of these conferences has a wide range of speakers with many worthwhile ideas to consider. I hope to see you at one or more of these conferences. I hope many of you consider the centrist call to use common sense to seek common ground as we continue exploring the best way to teach reading and writing. The blog will resume next week. In the meantime-

Happy Reading and Writing.

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

Copyright 2024 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.

Jeremy Spartzand and two of his teachers talk about how the Lyrics2Learn program fuses music with research-based strategies to improve fluency, comprehension, and background knowledge. An interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

“The three R’s- Rhythm, Rhyme and Repetition”

Jeremy Spartz

I’ve written before about reading programs based on the work of Dr. Tim Rasinski, who is widely known for his research on the efficacy of repeated readings and the value of teaching fluency to bridge the gap between decoding and comprehension LINK. A number of successful programs have their roots in those ideas LINK, LINK, LINK. Teachers in these programs are artfully teaching the science of reading. Among these programs is Jeremy Spartz’s Lyrics2Learn program. Lyrics2Learn fuses music with research-based strategies to improve fluency, comprehension, and background knowledge. Here is what Jeremy wrote when I asked him to describe his program:

Lyrics2Learn description: Lyrics2Learn is a K-5th grade online reading supplement. It hosts hundreds of leveled educational texts set to rhythm and rhyme, featuring an animated reading guide named Lefty Lyric. Lefty guides them through individualized lessons aligned to each student’s needs. By fusing music with research-based strategies to improve fluency, comprehension, and background knowledge, kids have fun fluently mastering stories as they work through repeated, choral and modeled reading practice. Additionally, the repetition, rhythm, and rhyme enable significant retention of information from the text. This enables more effective comprehension strategy instruction. As students become more familiar with weekly stories through repeated reading, comprehension questioning becomes more complex to push levels of understanding. The more kids know, the more they can show! Read to the rhythm!  Before listening to what he and his teachers had to say about the program and their implementation of it, let’s find out a little bit about their background.

BIOGRAPHIES

Jeremy Spartz: Jeremy is the teacher and founder of Lyrics2Learn, a music-based online reading fluency and comprehension program. He grew up in Minnesota (SKOL!), graduated from Concordia College, and moved to Colorado, where he was a classroom teacher at an elementary school. For 15 years, he taught multiple grade levels, tutored, and coached. While teaching, he became interested in reader’s theaters, student-led poetry slams, phonics songs, and writing-level educational stories in iambic pentameter to aid reading fluency instruction. This method soon evolved to include rhythm, rhyme, repeated reading, modeled, and choral reading. This music-based reading strategy improved fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, and background knowledge while significantly increasing his students’ engagement. Soon, the fluency program was combined with targeted foundational skill instruction during tutoring sessions with tier 2 and 3 students. Their success in closing the gap, combined with the enjoyment students expressed, the confidence they gained, and his principal’s support, led Jeremy to evolve the program into what is now Lyrics2Learn. 

Katie Ackerman:  Katie is a Teaching and Learning Coach, assessment coordinator, and runs the intervention programs at a Title I school in Colorado Springs, CO. She also taught K-2nd grades for 12 years. Katie has a bachelor’s degree in literature, a Master’s degree in Elementary Education, and a Master’s Degree in Reading Assessment and Curriculum.

Mary Gregory-Jones Mary (MJ) Gregory, has been an educator for 31 years. She has a BA in English, Secondary Education, grades 6-12 and a Master’s in Reading for K-12. She has taught high school, middle school, and elementary. For the last 16 years served as a district-level Literacy Specialist and a K-8 school Curriculum Coach/Reading Specialist in North Carolina.

Lyrics2Learn has proven itself to be a highly successful supplemental program. Have a look at the results posted by the Marisco Institute for Early Learning and Literacy (N=986):

LINK to the PDF of the Marsico study

LINK to website information about research around using music in reading

Here is a link to the YouTube interview:

Link to Lyrics2Learn:  https://lyrics2learn.com/

“Fluency is the bridge to comprehension.”

Tim Rasinski

Thoughts About This Interview

I visited the website and found that it was very user-friendly. Setting up for the students I tutor was a breeze. Help on the site was done using pop-up videos. It was like you had your own personal tour guide during the setup. During the interview, Jeremy, Kate and Mary described all the resources. I think your students will find the songs/readings engaging. The heart of the program is that it provides repeated readings. It does so in the spirit of reading to perform. Each entry is read three different times. The comprehension checks are gauged to fit the reading, becoming progressively more demanding as the students read the text for additional times. The management system for tracking student progress is outstanding. The program is designed to be a supplement. It is currently being used by over 2,000 teachers who are helping 20,000 students nationwide.  So as we already discussed, it is a very successful program.

There is an important nuance to how Rasinski’s ideas are being implemented in programs like this. Fluency is being taught (not just practiced). In one of my upcoming blogs, I will explore the importance of that idea and talk more about some programs that are already implementing that approach. In my opinion, this turns the whole concept of how we think about fluency/prosody on its head. Fluency is not just the result of comprehension. Fluency can be taught so that it becomes the cause of improved comprehension. Rasinski has said on many occasions that fluency is the bridge to comprehension. Upcoming blogs will closely examine how some teachers are helping to build that bridge for students to cross over.

After looking at the issue of fluency, I will then continue to explore what other teachers say about the best ways to teach reading. Most importantly, I’ll explore Bruce Howlett’s and Jan Wasowicz’s attempts to find common ground. Instead of looking at what we disagree on, Bruce and Jan focus on what we can agree on LINK, LINK. No one will benefit if the current situation “devolves” into another pendulum swing. Let’s use the new year to find common ground by exploring both the art and science of reading instruction, using research-based ideas from all sides. Doing that may create a time when there are no sides.

In addition, I’ll be busy over the next few weeks presenting my ideas at various conferences, including LIT CON 2024, The WSRA Conference, The MHRC Mid-Hudson Reading Conference and the Write to Learn Conference. Each of these conferences has a wide range of speakers with many worthwhile ideas to consider. I hope to see you at one or more of these conferences. I hope many of you consider the centrist call to use common sense to seek common ground as we continue exploring the best way to teach reading and writing. In the meantime-

Happy Reading and Writing.

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

Copyright 2024 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.

Joy Allcock, a well-known literacy expert from New Zealand, explains her Code-Ed program: An interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

For some time, I’ve been searching for researchers and teachers who have developed successful programs in literacy instruction. The gold standard for such programs is that the program gives sufficient weight to both the decoding and the comprehension parts of teaching reading. They must be carried out in a way that decoding and comprehension strategies taught are internalized. They must also be engaging. My search has expanded to a worldwide quest. I found a promising program in New Zealand. Its creator, Joy Allcock, hopes to expand it into the United States as well. In my opinion her program includes both worthwhile decoding and comprehension instruction. To help you understand how I reached that conclusion be sure to look at free downloads of two graphic organizers: Growing Readers and Writers – Children need to know… and, Growing Readers and Writers- Teachers need to teach… Those are available on her website, which will be featured later in this blog post. Let’s now learn a little more about Joy and her work.

BIOGRAPHY

Here is a link to the YouTube interview: https://youtu.be/un-f2KfKhY4

Go to the Code Ed home page for free download of two graphic organizers Growing Readers and Writers – Children need to know… and, Growing Readers and Writers- Teachers need to teach... Also, 3/4 of the way down is the free downloadable research by Prof James Chapman from Massey University.  LINK to the  homepage.   

The Articles page https://www.code-ed.co.nz/articles

Key Foundations  https://www.code-ed.co.nz/resources/key_foundations

Final Thoughts About This Interview. As Joy talked about the problems she observed in classrooms (5:52 in the interview), one of those problems was that children were trying to sound out words one letter at a time. That approach marks the very earliest stage of a synthetic phonics program, yet too often, as Joy observed, some educators use that approach in later stages, where it is usually ineffective. Remember that I advocate for teachers to know about all the different forms of phonics and to use that knowledge to scaffold children into internalizing strategies that fit the child LINK. When I teach about how to decode words, I point out that after the very earliest stages of teaching using synthetic phonics, one must shift to teaching about chunks. Joy’s program does that in a way that helps students learn the letter-sound relations. As part of learning how words work, students need to learn how to spell chunks like “at,” “an,” “ing,” “ar,” etc and to utilize that information in the decoding process. In addition, she teaches comprehension, and her graphic chart clearly shows she understands the complexities of the reading process. That’s why I’ve added her to the list of programs for teachers and administrators to consider as they search for programs that best fit their children. For the youngest children, she turns the instruction into play (18:51 in the video). That is critical. In my last blog, I said there are MANY viable ways to teach decoding and comprehension. Here are ideas from SOME of the teachers/researchers I’ve interviewed on best practices in reading  LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK. I remain steadfast in my belief that decisions about adopting programs/practices belong to local school districts. Mandating specific programs to the exclusion of all others is problematic at best.

In upcoming blogs, I’ll continue to explore what other teachers say about the best ways to teach reading. Most importantly, I’ll explore Bruce Howlett’s and Jan Wasowicz’s attempts to find common ground. Instead of looking at what we disagree on, Bruce and Jan focus on what we can agree on: LINK, LINK. No one will benefit if the current situation “devolves” into another pendulum swing. Let’s use the new year to find common ground by exploring both the art and science of reading instruction, using research-based ideas from all sides. Doing that may create a time when there are no sides.

In addition, I’ll be busy over the next few weeks presenting my ideas at various conferences, including LIT CON 2024, The WSRA Conference, The MHRC Mid-Hudson Reading Conference and the Write to Learn Conference. Each of these conferences has a wide range of speakers with many worthwhile ideas to consider. I hope to see you at one or more of these conferences. I hope many of you consider the centrist call to use common sense to seek common ground as we continue exploring the best way to teach reading and writing. In the meantime-

Happy Reading and Writing.

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

Copyright 2024 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.

The question about phonics is not whether to teach phonics but rather what kind of phonics and how much phonics: Musings of a centrist by Dr. Sam Bommarito

The question about Phonics is not whether to teach phonics but rather what kind of phonics, how much phonics and whether to use direct or discovery teaching when teaching phonics. BTW, both sides (all sides) in the current debate about phonics seem to be getting the answer to that question wrong.

There’s always a danger to taking the middle ground in things. The fact is you run the risk of getting everyone mad. That’s a risk I’m willing to take as I talk about the issue of phonics. Here are my key points:

• What works with one kid doesn’t always work with another. I make that a prior assumption/observation based on 50-plus years of teaching experience. During that time, I’ve taught every grade from kindergarten through graduate school.
• There is more than one way to teach phonics. I’ve written about that point many times. The ILA and PD Pearson have both taken that position LINK, LINK, LINK. There are MANY viable ways to teach phonics. Here are ideas from SOME of the teachers/researchers I’ve interviewed on that point LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK. In the coming weeks, I’ll be interviewing more folks about their programs and how they handle the issues of teaching decoding and comprehension. I try to include folks from both the Balanced Literacy and Science of Reading umbrellas in those interviews.
• Some students NEED a synthetic phonics approach. This is especially true for dyslexic students. The key place where folks working under the balanced literacy umbrella went off the tracks was their failure to ensure dyslexic students got the synthetic phonics they needed. In some instances, that involved giving them little or no phonics. In other cases, that involved giving them the wrong kind of phonics. The wrong kind of phonics for them is phonics taught using inquiry methods- analytic phonics being the best example of that kind of approach.
• Other students thrive on an analytic approach or a problem-solving approach. While some critics of analytic phonics have claimed that it doesn’t work, folks like Timothy Shanahan do see that approach as viable, provided it is done systematically LINK. A large body of research indicates that problem-solving models of teaching reading can and do work. The person who is best known for that body of research is Donna Scanlon LINK. By the way, she makes a strong, research-based case for including context as part of the word-solving process LINK. That is a giant no-no for many folks from the Science of Reading umbrella. Many of the folks under that umbrella have gone off the tracks by their assumption that most students with reading problems have dyslexia. They don’t LINK, LINK . They minimize the impact of things like SES and routinely accuse folks who bring up that point as “making excuses.”

Folks like Bruce Howett report that there have been at least four swings between code emphasis (synthetic) and meaning emphasis (analytic) approaches. We seem to be in the midst of another swing to the code emphasis side again. The same promises that were made the last go around are being made again. The promise is that this swing will be the one that solves all our reading problems. For an entertaining and informative video that counters those promises, please view George Hruby’s titled What the Phonics is the Science of Reading?

The sad fact is that the current swing to a mainly code-based approach is being powered by a misinformed, misguided public relations campaign that has been carried out in social media LINK. That is a topic all to itself. The main point I want to make again today is that it is time to try something we’ve never tried in the whole history of the reading wars. That is to adopt a centrist position, using ideas from all sides. Let the art of teaching reading guide us as we allow districts to select programs and practices that best fit their particular population. Let’s do what P.D. Pearson has suggested and adopt positions instead of taking sides. Let’s support Bruce Howett and Dr. Jan Wasowicz in their quest to find some common ground that we can all agree on LINK. Let’s take the steps we need to take in order to finally have a Reading Evolution LINK.

Dare to Dream!

IN THE COMING WEEKS: I’ll be interviewing Joy Allcock and Jeremy Spartz about their innovative approaches to teaching reading. I’ll also speak at several conferences, including LIT CON 2024, The WSRA Conference, The MHRC Mid-Hudson Reading Conference and the Write to Learn Conference. Each of these conferences has a wide range of speakers with many worthwhile ideas to consider. I hope to see you at one or more of these conferences.

Thought for the New Year: Empowering teachers is the key to solving literacy problems by Dr Sam Bommarito

It’s been well over five decades since the First Grade Studies first documented research demonstrating that when it comes to improving reading, teachers make more difference than programs LINK, LINK. Allenton and others have decades of research around that point LINK. Yet in the past year, many have continued the quest for “silver bullet programs” that will solve their literacy problems LINK. Research around programs like LTRS or OG clearly demonstrates that in terms of solving literacy problems- they come up short LINK, LINK, LINK.

Frank Smith once called the Great Debate around how and when to teach phonics the “Endless Debate.” I believe it remains the “Endless Debate” because we keep moving to the extremes, never trying the middle. The decades-long swings between meaning-based and code-based approaches clearly demonstrate that going to extremes results in pendulum swings. The debate keeps going on and on and on and on. For the past five years, I’ve taken the position that the common-sense thing to do is to draw on ideas and practices from all sides. That means all sides must admit that their particular position has limits and limitations LINK. That means that all sides must avoid using strawman versions of the other positions LINK. That means empowering teachers by giving them the training, tools, and materials they need so they can provide each student with the kind of decoding and comprehension instruction that benefits each student the most. That is easily said but hard to do. Here are some things that I think would help to bring about that kind of change:

1. Districts are in the best position to know their students and the needs of those students. Districts need to take a curriculum-first approach. That means developing a district-wide curriculum and then finding programs and materials that can be used to implement that curriculum. The quest for off-the-shelf silver bullets hasn’t ever succeeded. There have been 50-plus years of pendulum swings to demonstrate that is true. It’s time that programs are ADOPTED AND ADAPTED. That means programs should be adapted to fit each district’s curriculum.
2. As districts create curriculum around literacy, they need to recognize that there are many ways to teach decoding LINK, LINK  (go to 22:05 on the video). There are many systems that might be used. I’ve interviewed several educators with different ways to approach the teaching of decoding, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK. Each of these approaches can help some children. My advice about using these ways is to ensure that students who need a synthetic approach get that approach. However, in our zeal to make sure that happens (and that needs to happen for Dyslexic children), we shouldn’t deny those children who thrive using analytic approaches (discovery-based approaches) access to learning about that way of teaching phonics. There is a case to be made for using both discovery-based and direct teaching-based methods LINK. I think a well-designed RTI program could make that happen LINK.
3. Districts need to recognize that background knowledge is necessary for comprehension, but it is not sufficient. Comprehension strategies need to be taught directly and systematically. The NRP found such strategies LINK and found that students’ ability to apply and use those strategies consciously and deliberately as they read resulted in improved reading comprehension. Students must also learn about the various text structures and adapt how they read to fit those particular text structures LINK.
4. Districts need to consider ALL research, qualitative and qualitative. Some folks treat qualitative approaches as if they are a second-string lesser approach to scientific inquiry. They maintain that decisions should be based solely or mainly on quantitative studies. Yet quantitative studies have very real limits and limitations. The fact is that because of the complex nature of school settings, a purely quantitative approach can miss important nuances of what is happening. Do we believe that random assignment models completely control the thousands of variables in school settings? I think not. I’m not saying not to use quantitative information. After all, quantitative approaches do answer the question of how likely it is that the observed phenomena happened simply by chance. But I am saying that districts need more than that kind of information. Let’s also recognize that qualitative studies also answer the question of how likely it is that the observed phenomena happened by chance. Both these approaches have strengths, and they also have limits and limitations. What can we do about that?

Let’s start with the premise that science can result in somewhat different conclusions depending on the inquiry models used. Look at hurricane weather forecasts- there is no one “right” answer. We are used to seeing the multiple possible storm tracks, and we view those various possible tracks as scientifically based. We can all learn a lesson from General Eisenhower on how he handled that kind of scenario. When deciding when to carry out the D-Day landings, there were competing scientifically based weather forecasts. He chose the one day that both forecasts predicted the weather would be acceptable. That was a common-sense approach, and it worked! Had he stuck to one set of forecasts or the other without considering both, chances are high that he would not have gotten the results he did. Districts need to use all the research, not just the quantitative research and especially not the quantitative research that is so narrowly drawn that it leads to misdirection and confusion LINK.

5. That brings me to my opening point. Teachers make more of a difference than programs. Districts are best positioned to create a curriculum that fits local needs. Districts are in the best position to give teachers access to the various tools they need. Yet we currently have laws being implemented that strip away the district’s role and mandate solutions that don’t fit all the students that districts serve. I’ve written extensively about how such laws need to be reconsidered LINK.

David Pearson is often credited with the creation of the gradual release model. He is well-published LINK.  In fact, he is one of the most published and respected literacy researchers of our time. He has gone on record to say that the term “settled science” is an oxymoron. He has long advocated taking a centrist-based approach, what he calls “The Radical Middle”  LINK. He has given important advice to all considering what practices to adopt. That advice is to take positions, not sides. I think that is sound advice. I’m taking the position that we should let districts do their job and let districts decide the when and where of best practices that fit their particular population. They should use all the available research to help them make those choices.

In upcoming blogs, I’ll continue to explore what other teachers say about the best ways to teach reading. Most importantly, I’ll be exploring Bruce Howlett’s and Jan Wasowicz’s attempts to find common ground. Instead of looking at what we disagree on, Bruce and Jan focus on what we can agree on, LINK, LINK. No one will benefit if the current situation “devolves” into another pendulum swing. Let’s use the new year to find common ground by exploring both the art and science of reading instruction, using research-based ideas from all sides. By doing that, we may create a time when there are no sides.

Dare to dream!

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

Copyright 2023 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.

Happy Holidays from Dr. Sam

I’m taking a break this week. For me, the Holidays have taken on a bittersweet flavor. My brother-in-law is in hospice with end-stage cancer. I’m doing what I can to support the family in the difficult times ahead. Thoughts and prayers would be appreciated.

“Life is very short, and there’s no time-i-i-ime for fussing and fighting, my friend.” My current situation made that famous lyric come to mind as I write this message. I have hope that in the literary world, the fussing and fighting might be replaced by real dialogue and a move to seek common ground. Please review this interview with Bruce Howett and be on the lookout in the new year for even more efforts as he and Jan work toward finding some agreement and common ground in the literacy world. Here is a link to that interview: LINK.

I have friends and followers from all over the world, with many different beliefs and customs. To all of you, I extend my best wishes. Happy Holidays from Dr. Sam

Let’s use common sense to guide the way to common practices: A centrist’s advice on traversing the current social media debate about best practices in reading by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Blast from the Past- This is a repost of a blog I wrote last year about the current state of The Great Debate. I am reposting it to start my upcoming series about the current state of things in the reading world. That series will cover many topics, including the best ways to teach comprehension and decoding. I will also discuss the best ways for school districts to create curriculum. Hint- Seeking “silver bullet programs” is an ill-advised way to proceed. My position is that school districts should create local curriculum first, then find programs/materials that support that curriculum. Entries in this upcoming series will each include a “Dr. Sam’s Using Common Sense to Find Common Ground in Literacy” video. Those short videos will give a synopsis of the points from each blog and be published as a stand-alone entry for other venues, e.g., Threads. I will also continue interviewing folks from all sides of the literacy issue. All this is my way of working for the day when we can finally follow P.D. Pearson’s advice about handling the so-called “Reading Wars.” That advice is to take positions, not sides. We need to talk and discuss things. We need to do so without using strawmen. We need to use the best research-based ideas from all sides to carry out our overall mission in literacy. That overall mission is to create lifelong readers, writers, and thinkers. Dare to Dream! Here is that blog:

In the past few weeks, the current debate on social media has heated up to the boiling point. If one is to believe some social media posts, all that has come before in reading has failed. Publishers of the old ways of doing things continue to publish only because of the money made on those products. The products themselves are complete failures. There is a knight in shining armor on the horizon. That would be the new ways being advocated by some vocal proponents who claim they have found the answers we need to solve our nation’s reading problems. The answer lies in throwing out all the old and replacing it with their methods and products. In this week’s blog, I will again push back on this social media version of the Science of Reading and offer ideas about a different way to proceed. Here are some points to consider:

1. When looking at the claims of some SOR advocates on social media, it is a buyer-beware market. With her permission, I am presenting a Twitter thread posted by Jordan Page. The thread illustrates the point that it is a buyer-beware market:

Jordan’s experience is typical of many educators who go looking for new programs. Publishers use labels like Science of Reading or Research-Based to sell products, whether the labels really fit or not. Research has become weaponized LINK. Rachel Gabriel warns that not all research is created equal. Here is a screen capture from her RRQ article LINK.

As part of the “buyer beware” way to approach the acquisition of materials and programs, educators would do well to ensure the research used to prove the value of such programs is examined carefully. Ensure the research comes from peer-reviewed sources and the measures used in the studies are appropriate.

• Some of the reporting on social media uses slanted misleading evidence. This is especially true of research claiming to prove that the most used publishers are selling flawed products despite the evidence that shows the methods are flawed. I respectfully disagree with what many of these folks are saying. As I discussed last week, they sometimes use “discount and discredit” tactics designed to “prove” the alternate methods don’t work LINK. For this reason, I have labeled this group the social media branch of SOR to set them apart from other SOR advocates.

One clear example of misdirection and selective reporting can be found in the recent media postings about May’s study about the long-term effect of Reading Recovery. That study was reported as showing that over time Reading Recovery students got worse, i.e., not only did they fail to keep the gains made in recovery, but they actually moved backwards. Let’s look at a screen capture of what Dr. Billy Molasso, PhD, in a Nov 14th advocacy alert for the Reading Recovery Community.

Links from the screen capture

Hurry, Fridkin and Holliman’s study LINK

Multiple longitudinal studies. LINK

The study had a 75% attrition rate (a major red flag), and as the last two bullet points indicate, the author of the May study still favored the use of Reading Recovery. Omitting that demonstrates reporting designed to prove a point rather than reporting that rises to the standard of good journalism. I advise taking a buyer-beware approach when dealing with these social media versions of the Science of Reading. This is just one of many examples of the incomplete, slanted, and misleading reporting done by many of the folks in the social media branch of SOR.

• Another social media branch of the SOR is made of individuals providing services to Dyslexic children. Frequently they have very narrow views of what constitutes good instruction in reading , they focus mainly on teaching phonics and use only analytic phonics to do that. I question whether their approach reflects the best practices indicated by this comprehensive review of the research around dyslexia reported in the RRQ LINK, to the review.

Part of my reason for that concern is that these individuals are often evasive about how much time they spend on comprehension. A few have admitted they leave comprehension to others. Often, when they do check for comprehension, it is at a word or sentence level, not a passage level. There is virtually no evidence that they teach comprehension strategies at a passage level. This precludes any extensive use of what Duke has called the Science of Reading Comprehension. LINK

When considering this manner of delivering reading instruction, a method I characterize as Phonics First, Comprehension Later, district leaders should consider whether such a course will result in improved comprehension. Consider the slide from P.D. Pearson from his YouTube presentation on the Science of Reading Comprehension. LINK

Pearson’s information (which includes 86 studies) certainly calls into question the Phonics  First, Comprehension later approach. The information that 1/3 of the students not passing the 3^rd-grade test were fluent also should give one pause about an approach that relies almost exclusively on improving decoding. Frequently the Phonics First, Comprehension later, folks report their results using tests focused mainly on decoding. Please consider what students will be required to do on the end-of-the-year state reading tests to see if that is a sufficient test of the worth of the Phonics First, Comprehension Later programs. See Box 1 below. It lists what is required on state reading tests. It is taken from an article by Nell Duke LINK.

• The centrist point of view- what is it?

What is a centrist? (taken from my 10/22/2022 blog LINK. Those who follow this blog know that for the past four years, I have explored the issues surrounding the so-called reading wars LINK, LINK, LINK. One of my followers, Judy Boksner, described a centrist this way:

(Be sure to visit Judy’s YouTube Channel LINK)

This slide gives the key to why I am a centrist:

• Here is one explanation of why students are not learning to read. It is an excerpt from my 09/18/22 blog LINK:

I ENDED THAT BLOG ENTRY WITH THE FOLLOWING:

I’m back to my mantra. “Let’s use common sense to find common ground.” Let’s recognize that what works with one child doesn’t always work with another. Let’s put a moratorium on talking about what’s wrong with “the other side(s) methods and instead ask- is there anything from the other side(s) ideas that I can use to help my kids when my preferred methods don’t work? In my original post about this four years ago, I called this creating a reading evolution LINK.

Please note that this final analysis includes the scenario of districts using ideas from balanced reading and SOR. That is what I hope the centrist point of view will lead to—finding common ground by using ideas from both sides.

SPECIAL NOTE: Dr. Sam’s Blogs in the Coming Weeks.

As indicated earlier, I am reposting this blog as a start to my upcoming series about the current state of things in the reading world. That series will cover a wide range of topics e.g. best ways to teach comprehension, decoding and best ways for school districts to create curriculum. I’ll intersperse that series with interviews of folks from a wide range of viewpoints about literacy.

So, 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 view and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

P.S. 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.