This week I’m posting a Guest Blog from Dr. Jan Richardson.  She gives a well-researched response to criticisms made about a webinar that she and Michele Dufresne did last December.  I’ve said many times that we must use ALL the research and listen to the WHOLE STORY when making decisions around literacy issues. I want to thank Jan for allowing me to post this very informative article. Please listen to what she has to say. Dr. Sam

My Side of the Story, by Dr. Jan Richardson

On December 8, 2022, I did a webinar with Michele Dufresne on Getting the Facts Straight on Guided Reading. In response to the webinar, there have been numerous attacks from social media, seeking to convince guided reading teachers that their method of teaching reading is not aligned with reading science. Much of the criticism is based on inaccuracies (e.g., confusing Pre-A readers who don’t know letters and sounds with Emergent Readers who know their letters and sounds).

I‘ve prepared a white paper explaining in detail how my “Next Steps” approach to small group instruction aligns with reading science. In a nutshell, these are areas where we agree:

• The Science of Reading (SOR) is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Children will need different kinds of instruction to meet the common goal of becoming proficient, engaged readers.
• The SOR is an evolving body of research, not a reading program that can be purchased. Although many districts are searching for a “Science of Reading Program,” there is no such thing.
• There is a difference between obtaining information from the media and choosing to read the research. Unfortunately, too many well-meaning reading enthusiasts simply repeat what they have heard on social media and don’t consult the research.
• The term “guided reading” is used in a variety of contexts. It does not have an agreed-upon definition (Shanahan). This is my definition: During guided reading, a teacher meets with a small group of students and differentiates instruction by targeting specific learning needs, providing appropriate scaffolding, and gradually reducing support to promote independence. My lesson framework aligns with the basic tenants of effective reading instruction as described by Structured Literacy. It also explicitly teaches the key elements of reading defined by the National Reading Panel Report.
• Children need to use letters and sounds to decode words.
• The phonics activities included in The Next Step Forward in Guided Reading (2016) and the Next Step Forward in Word Study and Phonics (2019) are research-based.
• Reading Instruction should meet a student’s needs and be based on formal and informal observations and assessments.
• Guessing words is not an acceptable reading strategy. Teachers should never encourage a student to guess at a word. Children should integrate multiple sources of information to get the precise message of the author.
• Phonics is essential, but not sufficient. There are several key elements that children need to learn to become proficient readers. In addition to phonics, children need instruction in decoding (the application of phonics), phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing.

Phonics should be taught explicitly and systematically. All the books I have written include a phonics scope and sequence aligned with the developmental stages supported by decades of research (Bear et al., 2019; Ehri, 2022; Ganske, 2013) and a variety of effective, engaging, and research-based procedures that explicitly teach letters, sounds, sight words, spelling patterns, inflectional endings, and morphemic units.

• Decodable texts can be useful for helping students practice a phonics skill.
• Orthographic mapping (forming letter-sound connections to bond the spellings, pronunciations, and meanings of words) (Ehri, 2014) helps child expand their sight word vocabulary.

The following paragraphs present my position on the use of decodable texts and the three-cueing model, two major areas where SOR extremists have attacked guided reading. My position is strongly supported by reading science research.

Decodable books

I have personally taught thousands of small group reading lessons and used a variety of instructional texts, including decodable texts, leveled books, basal stories, newspaper articles, chapters from novels, and sections from textbooks. I’ve even taught guided reading to advanced middle school readers using a chapter from a physics textbook! One of my favorite genres for guided reading is poetry. My point is you can use my small group lesson framework with any text. My framework is simply a way to integrate reading, writing, and phonics to bring about greater acceleration. It does not mandate or exclude any type of text.

The current debate about whether to use decodable texts or leveled books centers on emergent readers (reading levels A-C). Books published for emergent readers differ according to the publishing company. Some beginning books are highly patterned and repetitive; some are highly decodable. Still others use multi-criteria, which includes high-frequency words, decodable words, and meaning.

Despite the enthusiasm for using highly decodable texts, the research on using them is inconclusive (Mesmer, 2000; Lindsey, 2022; Shanahan). Some studies favor decodable texts (Cheatham and Allor, 2012; Compton, 2005; Mesmer, 2005), while others favor multi-criteria texts (Juel and Roper/Schneider, 1985; Jenkins, Peyton, Sanders, and Vadasy, 2004; Menon & Hiebert, 2005; Mesmer, 2010; Price-Mohr and Price, 2019).

My position is similar to Shanahan’s. He writes, “I think it’s okay to use decodable texts as part of phonics instruction, but such practice should be severely limited, and even beginning readers should be reading more than decodable texts.”  In another of Shanahan’s blogs on decodable texts, he says it is reasonable to use decodable texts to practice a phonics skill, but “kids are likely to be best off in classrooms that provide them with a mix of these text types rather than a steady diet of any one of them.” He goes on to say, “Personally – based on my own experiences as a primary grade teacher—I would use all of these kinds of text.”

Shanahan is critical of using predictable texts, and so am I. Predictable, patterned books offer emergent readers an opportunity to learn print concepts and simple English language structures, which supports the development of phonological and decoding skills(Scanlon & Anderson, 2020; Mesmer & Williams, 2015.  However, once children control early print concepts and know the letter sounds, teachers should avoid patterned text and use decodable texts along with multi-criteria texts so the students can develop a “mental set for diversity” (Shanahan).

Although we might disagree on some aspects of decodable texts, I hope we can agree on these points presented by (Mesmer):

• Use them (decodable texts) at the right developmental window, which Mesmer defines as when children are solid with the concept of a word, know all letter sounds, and are ready to decode words. She states, “I suggest that children be able to decode a simple c-v-c word prior to using decodables.”
• Use after a phonics lesson to practice a target word family or sound. In my recent reading intervention program called RISE, I wrote decodable texts for each lesson so children could practice the sight words and phonics skills that were taught in the lesson.
• Do not use decodable texts exclusively. Children benefit from also using multi-criteria texts that target high-frequency words, decodability, and meaningfulness.
• Pay attention to the level of decodability. There are times when highly decodable texts may be appropriate, but if the reader is having to sound out every third word, the book probably contains too many decodable words.
• Know when to stop using decodable texts. Mesmer recommends ending the use of decodable texts after children can easily blend c-v-c and c-c-v-c words. Most children master this skill in the spring of kindergarten or fall/winter of first grade.

Three-cueing system (MSV)

I think we can agree that readers use multiple sources of information to make sense of print – semantics (Meaning), syntax (Structure), and graphophonics/letter-sound relationships (Visual).  

Many teachers, myself included, use MSV as a tool for analyzing student errors and self-corrections. The coding helps teachers decide which sources of information students are using (and ignoring) so the teachers know how to prompt the student during reading. When a reader makes an error that ignores phonics, teachers should prompt the student to look more closely at the word, sound it out, or break it into parts. If the reader tries to sound out the word but ignores meaning, then teachers should prompt them to crosscheck the visual (phonics) with meaning. You used all the sounds, but what word would make sense? (Clay, 2016; Bates, McBride, & Richardson, 2020, Shanahan. Research has shown that teachers who prompt students to attend to the cues the students are ignoring tend to be more effective (Scanlon & Anderson, 2020). The goal is for the reader to integrate multiple sources of information to read the exact words in the text.

The current controversy surrounding the three-cues is fueled by an assumption that if children are prompted to use meaning-based strategies, they will learn to guess at unfamiliar words (Hanford, 2019, 2022). Ehri (2014) has shown that children with partial alphabetic word knowledge often use initial letters plus pictures to anticipate what a word might be. I don’t consider this guessing. It is part of the developmental process of word solving and learning. The goal, of course, is for these children to acquire more letter sound knowledge so the teacher can direct the student’s attention to using all the letters in the word for accurate word identification.

I agree with Scanlon and Anderson (2020) that children can use both meaning and visual information right from the start: “We do not view the use of context and decoding within an either/or framework, but rather encourage the interactive and confirmatory use of both code-and meaning-based strategies during word solving, within an instructional approach that is also responsive to the needs of students as they develop skill with the alphabetic code” (p. S20).

By the way, there is widespread misunderstanding among SOR proponents that the V in MSV means pictures. They suggest it is a way of encouraging children to guess at words. See Hunts Institute Virginia Education Summit, 2:50:16ff.  That is totally false — yet I have heard presented numerous times.

Page 31 of the Science of Reading Defining Guide says that in order to be good citizens of a science and practice community, educators should fairly evaluate all evidence “regardless of whether the conclusions are inconsistent with your beliefs.” It also says we should “acknowledge differences and discuss them with respect and decency.” Unfortunately, I seldom see this kind of respectful debate on social media posts. I sincerely hope we can find common ground on the essentials of effective reading instruction, and when we disagree, we can do so with respect and professionalism.   

Want to hear more about Jan’s ideas? Here is a link to an interview I did with her last year. LINK

Several important interviews and blog posts are lined up in the next few weeks. We will start next week with an interview with Gravity Goldberg. In addition, P.D. Pearson has agreed to be interviewed. I am working on setting up that interview late in the summer or early this fall. Until then:

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.

Tom Loveless Debunks Social Media’s Three Biggest Myths about Reading Scores: An interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Tom Loveless, Ph.D., is an education researcher and former senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (1999–2014). From 2000 to 2017, he authored The Brown Center Report on American Education, an annual report analyzing important trends in education. Loveless has published widely in scholarly journals and appeared in popular media to discuss school reform, student achievement, and other education topics.

Loveless holds a Ph.D. in education from the University of Chicago, an MA in special education from California State University, Sacramento, and an AB in English from the University of California, Berkeley. From 1979 to 1988, Loveless was a classroom teacher in the San Juan Unified School District, near his hometown of Sacramento, California. From 1992 to 1999, Loveless was an assistant and associate professor of public policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. At Brookings, Loveless served as director of the Brown Center on Education Policy from 1999 to 2008.

From 2004 to 2012, Loveless represented the United States at the General Assembly of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, a sixty-nation organization that governs international testing. From 2006 to 2008, he was a member of the president’s National Mathematics Advisory Panel.

Link to Tom’s Vita  LINK

Here is a link to the YouTube interview:

Here are some of the talking points from the interview:

Here is a link to buy Tom’s books LINK

Link to Tom’s Blogpost about the inaccuracies of claims made on social media LINK.

You can follow Tom on Twitter: @tomloveless99.

KEY SLIDES FROM THE INTERVIEW:

KEY SLIDE ONE

KEY SLIDE TWO KEY SLIDE ONE

KEY SLIDE THREE

Shakeel, M.D., and Peterson, P.E. (2022 Education Next, 22(4), 50-58.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1359326

Final Thoughts About This Interview.

I’ve written several times pushing back on the incomplete and misleading stories being told on social media LINK, LINK, LINK. This interview is an important addition to the growing pushback on those social media stories. The size of the problems within reading is being exaggerated. Social media says about two-thirds of kids are reading below level. They make that claim based on an incorrect interpretation of the NAEP scores. Dr. Loveless indicates the actual figure is about 1/3. That figure has remained constant, and that lack of change includes the current era of reforms involving mandating SOR. I do not in any way want to give the impression that 1/3 of all students reading below grade level is unimportant. But as Dr. Lawless points out, looking at what the data is actually telling us requires a very different fix than the simplistic ones being advanced by SOR advocates. The discussion on what the best policy should be needs to be made using all the research. It needs to draw on practices from all sides. That discussion needs to begin in every state legislature considering changes in the laws around literacy, especially early literacy LINK. I believe the current changes are doomed to failure because they are based on false premises and fail to consider all the research. That point will be a recurring theme in my future blogs.

A good way to end this blog post is to call your attention to Paul Thomas’s latest letter about this topic. He is one of many advocates encouraging the proper reporting of all the research and the use of all the research to inform our decisions on this crucial topic. Here is a link to his open letter to the Biden Administration et. al. LINK

Several important interviews and blog posts are lined up in the next few weeks. Included will be an interview with Gravity Goldberg and a guest blog post by Jan Richardson. In addition, P.D. Pearson has agreed to be interviewed. I am working on setting up that interview late in the summer or early this fall. Until then:

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.

Leah Mermelstein talks about her book We Do Writing: An Interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

This blog post is a repost of an earlier blog I did about Leah Mermelstein and her book We Do Writing. Leah is currently doing a FREE book study around this book. I will attend that book study and want to promote it! Contact her at leahmermelstein8@gmail.com  for more information and to sign up for the next book study session. The next book study will be on August 9^th at 7:00 pm, and Leah will be there!

Here is some information about Leah taken from her website:

I found out that Leah was a staff developer for Lucy Calkin’s project around the same time I did my own 4-year stint learning about writing workshop. I have already purchased my copy of Leah’s book. That is because I plan to resume helping my 3rd grade teachers implement workshop in the fall. BTW- that is because they asked me back. They loved workshop!  

Leah’s methods are grounded in the workshop model. What she brings to the table are ways to simplify workshop teaching and to help teachers to help kids write more. Her ideas also help them love writing. During my own training I remember Katie Wood Ray telling us to have kids write more- make more stuff! I know with the help of the ideas from this book, next year my 3^rd graders will be doing just that. I highly recommend this book.

Now it is time to have a look at the interview. Here are the topics we discussed. They are time stamped.

1. Tell us about yourself. Tell about how to create simple tools for complex work.  01:00

2. What made you decide to write this book? 04:00

3. Can you share the major parts of the “We-Do” writing model with us? 08:23

4. What research did you lean on while creating the “We-Do” model? 15:10

5. Any final thoughts? 23:00

Here is the YouTube interview:

Here is some additional information about Leah, including several important links:

Link to her web page:  Web Page:  www.leahmermelstein.com

Link to purchase book:  Leah’s Book

THE WE-DO MODEL

Link to join her  “We-Do”  Facebook group.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/3458003700963828

Link to her blog: https://www.leahmermelstein.com/blog

Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/wedowriting/

Twitter: @MermelsteinLeah

Linkedin:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/leah-mermelstein-042a8a18

My thoughts about Leah’s book/ My upcoming Interviews this summer.

Workshop works (despite what you might have heard on social media). In this book, Leah provides research to support the use of workshop. Most of her book is about how to implement her model of teaching writing. It provides a treasure trove of practical ideas about teaching writing effectively and developing a lifelong love of writing in your students. This is one of my go-to books when teaching teachers about the art and science of teaching.

For the rest of the summer, I will do several blog posts/interviews I think will interest you. Next week Dr. Tom Lawless will talk about the social media’s version of the current state of the reading world. He will give extensive explanations about the whole story behind test scores. It is not at all the same as the story told by some social media pundits. By the way, this story is being told by a former Harvard professor of public policy and a professor who preceded his university career with a 10-year career in the classroom. We’ll also have a guest blog from Jan Richardson, where she tells the whole story of what she has said about teaching reading. Again, it is not at all the story being told by her social media critics. Toward the end of summer, I’ll interview P.D. Pearson about literacy. Again, a chance for you to hear the full story about our progress in literacy. Remember that Pearson is the architect of the widely used gradual release model of instruction and has decades of experience publishing in the top reading research journals in the literacy field.

So- Have a wonderful 4^th of July. I’ll “see you” next week.

Dr. Sam (the guy in the middle happily taking flak from both 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.

Dr. Billy Molasso, Executive Director of RRCNA, discusses RR and how research demonstrates that it really works: An interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Dr. Billy Molasso is the Director of RRCNA. In this interview, he talks about various issues dealing with Reading Recovery. He focuses on dispelling misinformation and myths about RR, which are currently being presented by the folks supporting the social media version of the Science of Reading. The facts are that Reading Recovery is research-based and has decades of research demonstrating that it works Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE). Billy knows about that firsthand since he is the parent of a reading recovery child.

Let’s now look at the questions Billy dealt with during this interview.

Here is a link to the YouTube interview:

RRCNA’s Website LINK

RRCNA’S Blog LINK

Follow Billy on Twitter- @BillyMolasso

My Thoughts About This Interview.

In the past few months, I’ve discussed how many researchers and others have been pushing back against the social media version of the Science of Reading LINK, LINK. Billy Molasso has been prominent among those folks. On the one hand, the positive effects of RR on students are well-documented LINK. However, when a study was published indicating that the long-term effects were negative, Billy stepped in and questioned that study’s conclusions. He pointed out that particular study had a very high attrition rate. The final conclusions are based on only 25% of the total number of students in the study. I wrote a blog around what Billy had to say on that point LINK. That blog also talked about what others were saying about the misdirections and misunderstandings being promoted by the incomplete story told by some social media pundits.

I have written about the positive effects of RR many times LINK, LINK, LINK. I was trained in RR, taught RR, and found that the training has been invaluable to me throughout my education career. The Professional Development aspect of RR is sometimes overlooked, but it is powerful. RR-trained teachers learn various methods to help children (and yes that includes the various ways to teach phonics). RR-trained teachers are a valuable asset to any district. In the interview about her book Rubies in the Rubble, Jill Speering reported that the same folks who were trying to end a RR program at her district were concurrently trying to encourage teachers from that program to stay with the district because of the extensive literacy training those teachers had.

Let’s remember that RR isn’t for every student, but for those who it fits, it carries out its main function. That is to accelerate those students to catch up with the students in their building. When that happens, and the building has a working tier-one program, the effects of RR remain for the long term. Susan Vincent reported that fact in an interview I did with her LINK.

Recovery works. Recovery-trained teachers are an asset. Recovery has helped tens of thousands of children worldwide. I urge all educators to resist the attempt by some folks to eliminate their competition by outlawing recovery. Doing so will create a monopoly. Monopolies never help consumers. I hope everyone keeps all this in mind as we create legislation around the issue of how to teach reading. Thanks for listening.

Happy Reading and Writing.

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

BTW more interviews coming up, including Jan Richardson, Gravity Goldberg and, later this summer P.D. Pearson

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 Father’s Day essay by guest blogger Joseph S. Pizzo. Thanks to Joe for sharing this wonderful piece- Dr. Sam

Happy Father’s Day to everyone. This weekend I’m taking a break from talking about literacy issues. I’ve invited a guest blogger Joseph S. Pizzo to share this tribute to his father. I think the things he says will ring true for all of us as we think about our own fathers. I guess sooner or later all of us become the best parts of our dad. Happy Father’s Day to all, most especially to my own dad the late Sam Bommarito Senior.  Dr. Sam

Becoming My Dad

Author: Joseph S. Pizzo

            Dad, as you know, when I was growing up, my goal in life was to play center field for the New York Yankees. When I realized that athletically I didn’t possess the gifts to accomplish that dream, I thought about being a disc jockey on the radio. I knew all of the music, and I would listen to and imitate the way show hosts Cousin Brucie, Casey Kasem, and Dan Ingram would read ad copy, chat with the listening audience, and add luster to their introductions to the music of Elvis, Chuck Berry, Sam Cooke, and more. I would put in my single ear plug on my hand-held six-transistor radio and lose myself in these shows. However, as you know, Dad, I was a shy kid who was awkward socially. How could I, the kid who once was standing next to future Hall of Famer Phil Rizutto in a hallway in Yankee Stadium and despite mom’s encouragement to say hello was too timid to do so, ever think that I could be a disc jockey? Being gregarious is a non-negotiable requirement for a radio host.

            Dad, our family has always believed strongly in divine intervention. I may have lacked the talent to be a professional athlete and the poise and confidence to be a dynamic radio personality, but somehow I had the yet-to-be-discovered ability to be just like the greatest gentleman I have ever known: you, Dad. I believe that God understood the fact that I was a handful of clay, and the artist I needed to inspire me to mold myself into a finished piece of art was you. God made you my dad so you could be my role model. All I had to do was to pay attention to the way you comported yourself and the joy you always seemed to inspire in the hearts of everyone who knew you. 

Dad, you always spoke in a gentle, soothing voice that was filled with richness. You were kind, generous, understanding, and always approachable. Even with your quiet nature that rarely was replaced with anger, you were gregarious. I remember going to the bank or the store or even to the gas station with you, and you were sure to be greeted by more than one individual who made the effort to stop whatever they were doing so they could chat with you. Their faces would all burst into smiles, and there was a sincerity to the respect that you would always receive. You took a genuine interest in everyone, and you chose to focus on the goodness that each of them harbored in their hearts. You encouraged everyone you met by making them feel that they each were the most important person alive. You were a best friend, a confidant, and a problem solver to all who were fortunate to know you.

Dad, you somehow always knew when I was struggling with an issue or a problem. You never demanded that I tell you what was wrong. You never told me that I shouldn’t worry. Your wisdom allowed you to know that these two strategies would have a very small chance to be successful. Instead, you would pat me on the shoulder and let me know that you would always be there to help me if I ever needed your help or advice. You empowered me to decide what direction I would take. You would then pat me on the shoulder again and reassure me that you were proud of me.

You know that I was always a perfectionist. Things had to be just so. You taught me that there was another way to deal with things. Dad, you helped me to realize that not everything that I do has to be perfect. You taught me to deal only with the issues and situations that could actually be changed without compromising my beliefs. Moreover, you showed me that complaining about things was not worth the energy that it took to do so. When I would spill a bowl of ice cream or drop a glass on the floor, you would help me to clean up the mess while never scolding me. You gave me the benefit of the doubt. I am so deeply grateful for the trust that you always placed in me. Author Alex Haley vowed always to “Find the good, and praise it.” In fact, he had that phrase engraved at the bottom of every piece of his stationery. Dad, you had the phrase etched deeply into your heart, and you have engraved that same phrase into my heart. 

You are a great man, Dad. You made sure that you treated with a strong sense of genuine caring and concern, all who were fortunate enough to know you. Even though you have passed away more than twenty-five years ago, I don’t allow one day to pass when I am not thanking God that he sent me to you and Mom. I don’t know if I shall ever have the beauty in my soul that you possessed. Even so, I shall continue to strive toward achieving that goal. You served as the perfect role model. You accomplished the things that I continue to work at every day. You have given me the perfect map to continue to overcome my shyness while I treat everyone with kindness, generosity, and understanding. I shall always try to remember to be approachable to anyone who might need a smile or the chance to share a story of their own success. I shall give my best effort to be reasonably encouraging to everyone I meet while placing the spotlight on them rather than myself. 

Dad, I realize that my dream of playing centerfield for the New York Yankees is a memory rather than a wish, and I know that I am a bit too old to be hosting a pop music show. Even so, I have been a middle school classroom teacher who shall be starting his 50th year in the classroom in November. I have found the confidence to teach public speaking and deliver speeches and professional development workshops. I may not be broadcasting live on my own radio program, but I have created a couple of podcasts that allow me to chat with authors, teach poetry, review interesting books, discuss educational issues, and even help a friend when he needs some copy read as a public service announcement or a commercial advertisement. I have been told that my voice has a richness and a comforting sound. Without any hesitation, I immediately smile and say, “I have been blessed with my dad’s voice.” It is the confidence that you have instilled in me that gives me the confidence to take reasonable chances and to greet everyone with your sense of dignity and level of interest.

Thank you, Dad, for the valuable lessons you have taught me. 

Thank you, Dad, for the patience that you have shown me that now serves as my foundation as I am attempting to build my own legacy.

Thank you, Dad, for being the role model you continue to be in my life.

I am proud to say that even though this journey still has many more steps for me to take, I am finally becoming you, Dad. Thank you for your inspiration. I hope I can make you and Mom even more proud of me before I leave this earth.

Author’s Note:

I am an Integrated Language Arts teacher of 49 years at Black River Middle School in Chester, NJ and an Adjunct Professor at Centenary University in Hackettstown, NJ.  Because of the kindness and support with which my dad inspired me, I have gained the confidence to invest in others while creating a synergy of positive goodness in my students and my colleagues. The pride that I take in my students’ accomplishments is similar to that which my dad always took in my accomplishments. I strive to make him and my mom proud every day.  

A middle-school English teacher in his 49th year, Joseph Pizzo teaches at the Black River Middle School and has served as an Adjunct Professor at Centenary University since 1992. Pizzo has been the Educator of the Year for AMLE, NJCTE, NJAMLE, and NJ S.H.I.N.E and a member of the WWOR-TV Ch. 9’s A+ for Teachers Hall of Fame. This former NCTE Historian, present member of the NCTE Children’s Poetry Book Award Committee and AMLE’s Early Career Educator and Teacher Leader Committees, he is the former president and current Executive Board member of NJCTE, NJAMLE, and the NJ Autism Think Tank. Pizzo has taught at Union County College  and College of St. Elizabeth, is a NJ Schools to Watch Core Leadership Team member, and a podcaster of A Writer’s Journey, A Spot of Poetry, and We Have Issues.

Here is a link to Dr. Pizzo’s weekly podcasts LINK.

About Literacy Instruction- A Letter to the  New York Times.

Note: A shortened version of this letter has been submitted to the Times. It was shortened in order to meet the word count criteria.

To whom it may concern,

I have been in education for over five decades and have taught every grade from Kindergarten to Graduate school. I currently work as an education consultant and write a weekly blog about literacy. One important thing I have learned all this time is that what works with one child doesn’t always work with another. One size fits all solutions have never faired well. Yet recent articles and podcasts by the Times seem to support the notion that the social media version of Science of Reading has found such a solution and that folks like Lucy Calkins have done more harm than good. That makes for great public relations, especially for companies selling the alleged silver bullets. However, it is based on very bad science. It is bad science because it is incomplete science. It is bad science because it fails to consider all the research.

 First, many top researchers have challenged the notion that it’s all settled science and that a silver bullet is ready for use. These researchers include P.D. Pearson, George G. Hruby, Rachel Gabriel, P.L. Thomas and Amanda Goodwin. Goodwin is the current co-editor of the prestigious Reading Research Quarterly. In a recent interview, she said

“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 they found 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.”  

By the way, one of the cornerstones of the social media version of SOR is to ban the use of context clues. That is part of their proposed ban on MSV. Please note that Goodwin is not saying to abandon systematic phonics. She is saying that kids need both systematic phonics and the problem-solving approach Scanlon and Anderson use.

Second is SOR’s notion that everything that has come before in literacy instruction has failed to work and must be replaced. Balanced literacy doesn’t work. Folks like Lucy Calkins are vilified. Some SOR advocates claim she and others like her are hurting kids. But look at all the research before buying into that. Tim Pressley just published the 5^th edition of the book explaining and defending balanced literacy. That book contains much research-based evidence showing that Balanced Literacy can work and that it includes systematic phonics. Lucy has been incorrectly identified as the inventor of Balanced Literacy. The claim is made that Balanced Literacy teachers don’t teach phonics. It was actually the late Michael Pressley who invented the term Balanced Literacy. His son, Tim Pressley, just published the 5^th edition of the book about Balanced Literacy. There is plenty of evidence in that book that claims of failure are simply not true. The SOR folks are taking on a strawman version of Balanced Literacy rather than trying to deal with the real thing.   In addition, regarding successful teaching using workshop, the ink isn’t dry on research showing that workshop works before the attacks on the data start. The attacks discount and discredit studies using criteria for success that are much more stringent than those being used to judge the research supporting their stance.

Third, the research supporting their stance is equivocal. LTRS training is not even close to a cure-all, yet the research demonstrating that is ignored. For years, England has used synthetic phonics- the SOR fleet’s flagship-. Yet a recent landmark study found it is not working. P.D. Pearson, one of the top literacy researchers of all time, has said all the SOR folks have really demonstrated is the ability to improve performance on word list tests. When it comes to improving comprehension, they have simply been unable to demonstrate that. Comprehension is the Achilles heel of the social media SOR movement.

Fourth- the claims of success made by these SOR advocates in places like Florida and Mississippi have also been challenged. In a recent blog post-Diane, Ravitch explained how the NAEP scores are arbitrarily manipulated to uphold failure claims. Both she and P.L. Thomas have carried out work that shows the “miracle gains” in 3^rd-grade reading scores disappear in later grades. These gains are partly due to the retention of 3^rd graders, which temporarily boosts scores by removing them from the testing pool and giving them a second chance to take the test. Doing so actually hurts those students. The research shows they are more likely to drop out of high school. It also shows that kids who are not retained do just as well as the ones who are. Add to that the facts that it costs extra money to keep those kids in the system for one more year and that children of color are more likely to be retained. Given problems with the practice of using retention to raise scores, one must conclude it is a practice that should be ended. One more thing- Ravitch also points out that other improvements made in Mississippi, e.g., more funding, and smaller class sizes, may have played a significant role in raising the scores. Current reporting is silent on that point, giving credit only to using SOR.

In conclusion, why are we letting public relations spin doctors shape literacy policy while ignoring what major researchers have to say? For several years now, I have championed taking a centrist position. That means using the best of ALL sides. My position is rooted in P.D. Pearson’s idea of the “Radical Middle,” a position which he continues to develop. This is not a call to keep the old ways. It is, instead, a call to do something we’ve never done in the history of reading. Instead of listening to the folks on the extremes (phonics vs. no phonics), let’s adopt a middle-ground approach. Let’s use ALL the research, not just the research that sells particular phonics programs. Perhaps we can learn a lesson from recent events where taking a centrist position avoided a national calamity in the financial world. I’m calling on the Times and other media to report the whole story, not just the story the social media spin doctors want told. Let’s hear from folks like Pearson, Ravitch, Gabriel, P.L. Thomas, and others. Let’s take what they have to say more seriously. Perhaps then we can finally use ideas from all sides to stop pendulum swings in literacy discussions. Perhaps we can learn from one another. Dare to Dream.

Dr. Sam Bommarito

Reading Teacher

National Reading Consultant

The guy in the middle taking flak from all sides.

Tim Pressley discusses the newest edition of Reading Instruction that Works- The Case for Balanced Teaching:  An interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

We are fast approaching Father’s Day, and I believe Tim Pressley has honored his late father’s memory and work with the very best present of all. He co-authored the newest edition of Reading Instruction That Works (5^th edition). Most folks know of his father, Michael Pressley. He is the creator of the idea of Balanced Literacy. Tim & his co-authors have continued his father’s legacy with a well-written, well-researched book that both carries on his father’s work and adapts it to the current landscape of literacy instruction.

Here is some information about Tim:

Tim Pressley, Ph.D., is an associate professor of psychology at Christopher Newport University and is a faculty member for the university’s master’s in teaching program and the Center for Education Research and Policy. He received his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from Florida State University and has a background in elementary education. Before receiving his Ph.D., Dr. Pressley was an elementary school teacher, a driving force behind his research. His current research focuses on teachers’ lives, specifically the impact of COVID-19 on teachers, teacher effectiveness, and teacher burnout. His work has been published in Educational Researcher, Teaching and Teacher Education, School Psychology, and The Teacher Educator.

Additionally, he has co-authored the most recent edition of Reading Instruction that Works: The Case for Balanced Teaching. He is currently co-authoring a book focused on K-12 schools post-COVID-19 (coming late 2023/early 2024). He hopes his research gives teachers a voice on aspects impacting teacher’s lives.

Interviewing Tim was a genuine pleasure. He presents us with the real version of Balanced Literacy. He notes that his goal in this book is to update the book’s research and make the book more teacher friendly. He has succeeded in doing both. Balanced Literacy is so much more than just promoting a love of books. Tim’s explanation of the book’s content clarifies that Balanced Literacy is nothing like the strawman version of BL often given by folks attacking BL. In this newest edition, Tim outlines how Balanced Literacy includes the direct and explicit teaching of phonics and provides a complete and systematic look at how comprehension can be taught. Every chapter of the book includes great teaching practices and recent research backing up those practices. It documents the fact that Balanced Literacy (Balanced Teaching) not only works but also involves teaching children in a way that they get the instruction that fits their particular needs. He calls special attention to the newest chapter in the book. It is Chapter 9, Reading Instruction for Emergent Bilinguals, by Ana Taboada Barber. Tim is correct in his assessment that there is much new and valuable information in that chapter. Overall, this new edition of the book is both teacher-friendly and child friendly. As he notes in the interview, as a parent, he wants Balanced Literacy for his child as she grows up.

Here is a link to the YouTube interview:

Here are the talking points from the interview:

Here is a link to buying the book. When I bought my hard copy today, I also purchased the e-book copy. The cost to add the e-book is minimal.  LINK

Link to Dr. Pressley’s website LINK

Link to Dr. Pressley on Research Gate LINK

Final Thoughts About This Interview.

Tim is not trying to force his views on anyone. He is not trying to pass laws outlawing all competing practices. Instead, he is presenting educators and parents with effective ways to meet the needs of their students. Tim is leaving the decision on what practices to use to the teachers and administrators to make after reviewing the considerable research presented in each chapter. It is not the strawman version of Balanced Literacy presented in some newspapers and social media accounts. It is not a one size fits all answer. It is most definitely a research-based answer. As I’ve been saying for quite some time, consider all the research before deciding your best course of action around these issues.

Ending with Mary Howard’s Inspirational words

With all the meanness and vitriol plaguing the latest discussions on the best ways to teach reading, it was refreshing to hear a voice of reason like Tim’s. In addition to Tim, my very good friend and colleague, Mary Howard, had some things to say about the current literacy world situation. I hope everyone takes the time to listen to and follow her advice. It’s time for common sense and common ground in literacy discussion.

“We are at a crossroads, my friends. The world of Literacy is not doing well, and it needs us to give it a gentle nudge back to life.”

Mary Howard, June 2023

Here is the link to her full blog entry LINK. I think you will find Mary’s thoughts both moving and informative.

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.

More Well-Known Researchers Push Back on the “Science of Reading” Claims- A blog post by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Let’s start with an announcement concerning last week’s post about Tierney and Pearson’s webinar LINK.

The recording of our #ILAWebinar Fact-Checking the “Science of Reading”: Claims, Assumptions, and Consequences presented by Rob Tierney and P. David Pearson is now available on demand.

You can still register for the event to get access to the recording.

https://bit.ly/ILAWebinar_FactCheckingSOR https://pic.twitter.com/wpqIXhOzWa

This week we discover that Pearson is not alone in pushing back on the social media version of the Science of Reading. Let’s look at this article from the Washington Post. LINK.

Valerie Strauss indicates this article centers around the views of several educators and the post they created for the article.

Reinking, Smargorinsky, and Yaden are well-credentialed. Reinking is a former Editor of the Reading Research Quarterly. In the post they share in this article, they make several additional points about the issues of reading instruction, especially early reading instruction.

-Like Pearson, P.L. Thomas, and Andy Johnson, this group of researchers and teacher educators find no convincing evidence of a “reading crisis.” The fact is that since NAEP started tracking scores in 1972, the scores have remained mostly flat. The only significant drop came with the covid 19 shutdown of schools. They correctly point out that the drop came due to “societal factors.”

-They also point out that the claims that the NAEP scores demonstrate that 2/3 of students are not proficient in reading are misleading. See what Diane Ravitch, a former member of the NAEP board, had this to say on that claim:

-They make it clear that phonics is important. Still, they point out that the National Reading Panel, which is often cited to justify the switch to a phonics-dominated curriculum, actually called for a balanced approach to teaching reading. I hope every teacher, parent, educator, and researcher reading this post takes the time to read Chapter 2, page 97 of the NRP report. Phonics is not unimportant, but phonics is also not the real solution to today’s reading problems.

-Finally, the MANY things that might make a difference in improving the state of reading instruction are listed, with links to each item. The links are not active in the screen capture below but are active in the article. I hope I have piqued the reader’s interest enough to go back and look at the full article.

MY THOUGHTS ABOUT RECENT EVENTS AND THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THE WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE.

I’ve had a 50-plus-year career in education. I continue to do in-class push-ins, tutoring, and in-service for preservice teachers. I also write this weekly blog and have been asked to do several presentations at various reading conferences over the last year. My first blog on this topic came because I read posts by teachers who were forced to stop using practices and materials that were working and instead use “Science of Reading” materials and methods. The situation is getting worse instead of better. What is going on? I think what is going on is that one of the most effective public relations programs in the history of education has convinced many that nothing from the past ever worked, everything from the past must be gotten rid of, and everyone should be required to use the methods and materials from “structured literacy.” All else is forbidden. This is a reminder that structured literacy was a public relations term invented to promote a particular point of view. Please read this link for the details LINK. I have no problem with folks promoting structured literacy; I have HUGE problems with folks promoting it to the exclusion of everything else. The clear goal of this movement is to unseat the prevailing methods that have worked for many children and replace them with their own methods. The net effect of doing so would be the creation of a monopoly. The beneficiaries are not the children. The beneficiaries are the publishers, who are now getting the exclusive rights to sell the wares while others are being forced out of the competition. Is this really happening?

YES.

I recently had a long conversation with Michele Dufresne, the owner of a small publishing company. The name of the company is Pioneer Valley Books. Research supporting her company’s Literacy Footprints Guided Reading System programis strong LINK. She expects it to be listed in the What Works Clearinghouse as an effective literacy program. Yet because of the legislation being passed in many states, districts can no longer use her program. These are districts whose children were underperforming and who subsequently raised the scores and kept them at or above average. Her program worked. It worked well in the field. It helped the kids. Yet it is banned in many states because of the impact of the current public relations campaign. As I have demonstrated in my last two blogs, the total misinterpretation and misrepresentation of research is being called into question by top researchers in the reading field. Yet because of the effectiveness of current public relations campaigns, state legislators are choosing to listen to public relations gurus and spin doctors. They are ignoring what top researchers have had to say. Something is rotten in Denmark!

Michele’s company only employs about 100 employees. She’s already had to lay some off. Currently, the sales of her innovative program’s decodable books are keeping the company afloat. Wait a minute, Doctor Sam- this company also sells decodables? Of course, they do. Like many centrists, they use ideas from all sides as they go about the daily business of helping teachers and parents help kids. If there are sides to this issue, think about the stance taken by each side. The social media Science of Reading folks take a “my way or the highway stance”. They are fixing things so only their materials can be used. By contrast, the centrists embrace looking at ALL the research and using ALL the ideas. Yet even when research and field experience show those ideas really work, the newest public relations campaigns are driving them out of the field anyway.  How is that right? Here is a simple reminder from a reading teacher of more than 50 years:

WHAT WORKS WITH ONE CHILD DOESN’T ALWAYS WORK WITH ANOTHER.

Let’s stop the madness. Let’s stop the formation of a monopoly in the literacy field. Let’s listen to the little guys when they devise things that work. Let’s not pull materials out of the hands of teachers when those materials are working. Let’s look at ALL THE RESEARCH and listen to ALL THE RESEARCHERS as we consider legislation. I’ll be revisiting all these issues from time to time this summer.

Most importantly, I’ll advocate for having BOTH analytic and synthetic phonics available so that each child can get the kind of phonics that helps them the most.  That is something that has not always been the case, and this summer, I want to explore how we can change things so that that can happen. I have several interviews lined up, including an interview with David Pressley about his newest book on balanced literacy, Michelle Dufresne as she tells us more about her cautionary tale of the effects of the current PR campaign, and with P.D. Pearson at the end of the summer to hear more about what the radical middle has to say on these issues. It’s going to be a busy and interesting summer. Stay tuned, folks- lots of good things are coming!

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

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.