Another Call for a Reading Evolution: The Case for Tweaking Instead of Replacing By Dr. Sam Bommarito


Another Call for a Reading Evolution: The Case for Tweaking Instead of Replacing

By Dr. Sam Bommarito

It’s been almost two years since I first suggested we need to consider a Reading Evolution (and no that’s not a typo- I really do mean evolution). Why evolution? Because an evolution has the best chance of stopping the eternally swinging pendulum of reading practices.   I’ve been teaching since 1970. I’ve watched that pendulum swing many times. Phonics vs. No Phonics, Analytic Phonics vs. Synthetic phonics and most recently Science of Reading vs. Balanced Literacy (I actually prefer the use of the term constructivist practices). I predict that in the end, Science of Reading, at least as it has been proposed by many, will fall victim to the same fate as all its predecessors. It will work for some, not for all.  Eventually, as the realization sinks in that it won’t work for all, folks will call for it to be abandoned in favor of some other new way of doing things and the pendulum will have to swing yet again.  My solution is really quite simple. Instead of doing a complete and wholesale change of things ala the Tsunami of Change point of view, why not try tweaking what we have? Use ideas from all sides. Why not try letting the pendulum come to a stop in the middle?

But Dr. Sam. What makes you think the current push for ideas of the Science of Reading won’t work for all? Let’s start with their idea that there is a great Tsunami of Change coming in the field of reading. Sounds powerful and exciting. Yet a tsunami is actually a natural disaster. It can take years to recover from the effects of a tsunami. Suddenly that idea seems like it wasn’t completely thought out. It is much less inviting than before.

But Dr. Sam, SoR, results in great gains in reading scores. Hmm. Really? Look at the tests often used by SoR proponents. They are tests of decoding not reading. And we know from the National Reading Panel that gains in decoding do not automatically turn into gains in reading.

But Dr. Sam kids need intense systematic phonics and lots of it. It’s true some kids do. Lucy Calkins, in her recent work around how to help children with dyslexia, found they need far more repetition than most students. But is the solution then to give all children all that extra time in systematic phonics? Classroom time is a zero-sum game. Extra time spent in instruction most children don’t need means those children won’t get instruction in other things. Is the best solution to help some children at the expense of others? Or does it make more sense to use a tiered system of instruction that allows all children to get the program that fits them the best?  I think you know where I stand on that one.

But Dr. Sam aren’t most children with reading difficulties Dyslexic? No. As a matter of fact, some experts in the field of reading like Tim Shanahan say we don’t yet have a good enough screen for Dyslexia, though he expects one to develop eventually. In the meantime, he suggests careful observation of students for one semester as the best way of determining who needs extra help. By the way, that means that many of the pronouncements of some SoR advocates around the prevalence of Dyslexia are suspect at best. They are using screens in a way that is getting well ahead of what actual science has to say about how to identify the children they want to serve.

But Dr. Sam, aren’t constructivist teaching children to guess about words? No! For details read this blog entry from the RR site and be sure to follow the other entries this entry cites.

But Dr. Sam, aren’t we using ideas around how to teach comprehension that have been proven to be obsolete? What about the work of Willingham? Shouldn’t we be spending most of our time building background knowledge and vocabulary and stop wasting time on teaching comprehension strategies? There’s a problem with that thought. Review the two decades of research demonstrating that teaching comprehension strategies using a gradual release model results in improved reading. This research is very much a part of the science of reading, yet we are being asked by some to ignore it. I’m not aware of anyone making a compelling argument that this research is flawed or wrong. So, while I would indeed make sure students obtain the needed background knowledge and vocabulary, I would go about making sure that happens in a very different way than some of the current SoR folks advocate. That brings us to the topic of tweaking what we have.

For instance, how could we tweak guided reading so it works in a way that can build vocabulary and background and promote comprehension? One way is to fully implement it as F&P have been describing it for years now. Too many teachers view guided reading as only the small group work and focus all their GR time on that component.  That is a mistake. Look at the chart found on the back cover of the 2nd edition of their book, and you’ll see there is much much more to guided reading than the small group work. Guided Reading should include whole group instruction using on-level texts. BTW- that’s where comprehension strategies can be introduced and modeled. To help build needed background teachers could include science and social studies texts as part of that work. For details, see my blog on this topic.

That brings me back to my original premise. Instead of doing another “throw it all out and replace it” round, why not try tweaking what we have? There are many possibilities for that and I would for sure recommend using some of the good points being made by SoR folks to help in that process. But use them in the context of everyone talking to everyone and everyone looking at how we can tweak current practices rather than throwing out everything we are currently doing and starting over. I strongly feel the latter approach (throwing out everything & starting over) will eventually guarantee another swing of the pendulum.

P.D. Pearson wrote a piece about the “radical middle” during the last round of the reading wars. It makes a compelling argument for trying out the center. Here is a link:

So. my thought for the new year is this- let’s have a reading evolution #readingevolution1. Let’s tweak instead of replace. Let’s discuss instead of bicker. The kids would be better off for it. So would we.


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

Copyright 2020 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely the view of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization

P.S. If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following the blog to make sure you won’t miss it.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.



Happy Holidays from Dr. Sam (& a little holiday treat from my kids)

Happy Holidays from Dr. Sam (& a little holiday treat from my kids)

I have many friends of many faiths and beliefs. I want to wish you all the best in this holiday season. Happy Holidays! May your holidays be filled with joy and wonder, including the joy and wonder reading great books can bring.  I’ll resume my blog series about teaching students how to read with prosody after the new year begins. In the meantime, here’s a little holiday treat from my third graders. As you know I am working with their teachers, helping them to implement writing workshop. We were doing a little demonstration of how paragraphs work (main idea details). It was a whole class endeavor. Share the pen. First attempt. Wasn’t expecting much of a result. They surprised me & came up with this funny, amazing little story about Santa. I love it when the kids learn more than you teach.  ENJOY!


Santa Got Stuck

Building Fluency Using the Ideas of Dr. Tim Rasinski: What our project looks like by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Building Fluency Using the Ideas of Dr. Tim Rasinski: What our project looks like by Dr. Sam Bommarito

A couple of weeks ago we had a very exciting visitor. Here is a tweet about that:


This year I spend one full day a week doing push-ins. Two of those push-ins are with third-grade teachers. I’m helping them to implement a writing workshop program.  I do some individual tutoring for students. Both are topics for another day. What I want to now talk about are the push-ins I do into two first grade rooms and two-second grade rooms. Those push-ins last about 50 minutes each. Last week I wrote about Tim’s visit a couple of years back where he told the story of a 1st-grade teacher who made some amazing progress with her students using repeated reading. Tim had a large body of research to back up the idea that repeated readings can have a very positive effect on reading. Let’s talk now about what this particular iteration of this general practice looks like.

In a nutshell here is what the team has arranged. Once every two weeks, the students get to pick a poem/song/other short reading to rehearse. The poems are rich in the sounds their basal is stressing for that period.  The students mainly work in pairs. Groups of three are formed only when the alternative is to have a student work on their own. Students showing stronger reading skills are paired with students showing somewhat weaker reading skills. Students practice their poems 5-7 minutes daily. If both students in the pair pick the same poem, each student takes a turn reading the poem, otherwise, each student reads their own poem. The pairing has proved especially useful. Both partners benefit. We’ve noticed that after a few weeks, children are no longer reading like a robot.  This link to a song from Go Noodle will help the reader understand what I mean by “robot reading” . Our children are already reading more like storytellers. We are using the rubric from Dr. Rasinski’s Megabook of Fluency to help document that. Details about that will come in future blogs.

The whole idea of this arrangement is that the students know they are “rehearsing” for a performance. In this case every two weeks they record their poem on See-Saw.  Parents have access to the recording that their child makes. One of the unanticipated consequences of the program so far has been the parent’s reaction to hearing their child read. It has been overwhelmingly positive. They too seem to notice the difference reading with prosody makes.

We are drawing on the ideas of two of Rasinski’s books to guide the team in the implementation of the project. Here they are:


As the weeks go on, I will address the issues of what the underlying theories are about,  what we are doing,  and what the research says about those theories. We’ll discuss how these methods fit into the big picture of the overall literacy program being used at the school.  I’ll also talk about what the initial prosody instruction looks like. But for now, I hope you’ve gotten enough of an introduction to get a good sense of what we are up to.  I want to especially thank the team for their participation in the program. As you will find out, they’ve pretty well taken over the implementation of the project and have added a new element I hadn’t thought of. To find out what that is you’ll need to follow the blog over the next few weeks. In the meantime:

Happy Reading and Writing


Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka the team facilitator)

Copyright 2019 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely the view of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

P.S. If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following the blog to make sure you won’t miss it.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.


Exploring the Science and Art of Teaching Reading By Dr. Sam Bommarito

Exploring the Science and Art of Teaching Reading

By Dr. Sam Bommarito

This is a repost of a piece I did when I first decided to try out the ideas of Tim Rasinski with my students. I spend one full day a week pushing into classes. I thought reposting this piece from a year ago would be a great introduction to the how and why of what we are doing this year to scaffold our first and second graders into reading with prosody. Pay special attention to the true story of a first-grade teacher and what she did. I’ve highlighted it in red. More to come next week as I talk about how this has evolved into a complete program of prosody

Reading is both an Art and a Science. Why on earth have we all seemed to have forgotten that?  I’m just coming off an amazing evening that included the installation of the board and officers of our local ILA group in St. Louis, and listening to two outstanding speakers, Amanda Doyle- the author of Standing Up for Civil Rights in St. Louis and Tim Rasinski who was there to promote his newly released book The Megabook of Reading Fluency.  My regular readers know I post every Friday. For the next few Fridays, I’ll be unpacking the many wonderful ideas that came from the speakers and audience at that meeting.

Let’s start with the big gun. Tim Rasinski. I got to introduce him. Didn’t know I was going to do that until the outgoing president of our local ILA said: “Sam, why don’t you introduce our second speaker.”  OMG. What to say! Actually, it wasn’t very hard. Tim is a long-time friend of literacy in St. Louis. He is a former president of the IRA (now ILA), former editor of many prestigious journals, including the ILA’s research journal. He has enough publications to fill a room. Yeah, I said it that way- I was on the spot.  But you know, it’s true.  Most of all I described him as a major reading guru, well known for his work in fluency.

Let’s talk about fluency for a second. Tim doesn’t view fluency as speed reading (ugh!). He views it as prosody (yeah!).  He has a prosody rubric that he makes available for free on his website. He also uses it in his own 3-minute reading assessment, which is also available on his website ( That one’s not for free! His new book contains a revised version of the rubric that includes the acronym E.A.R.S. to describe the major components of prosody. I’ve supported the use of the various forms of this rubric for a long time. This is because, in my opinion, it actually measures reading. I’m not at all sure what it is those tests that measure only the speed of reading measure. I guess they might help folks who want to become auctioneers. Not sure who else really reads or talks that way. But I digress. What about this idea of reading as an art as well as science.

I’ve heard Tim speak many times in many places. But this was the first time I’d heard him pitch the idea that READING IS AN ART AS WELL AS A SCIENCE. He made a very compelling argument. He made it clear that he supports the idea that the teaching of reading is a science. Given his background and publications, I find his claim that he believes that teaching reading is a science more than credible.  However, my ears perked up though, when he started talking about the teaching of reading as an art as well. The more he talked, the more I realized that he was afraid it was becoming a lost art. What does the art of reading look like in the classroom?

Tim talked about several different classroom teachers he has encountered. One of them spent about half of her literacy time doing all the traditional scientific things, and the other half of the time having her children learn to read AND PERFORM poetry.  Practice all week, performances on Fridays.  She was a second-year primary teacher. She was getting major push back about “wasting” instructional time. The upshot- lots less art, lots more science, please. She wrote to Tim about that. He advised her to stay the course. She did. As a result, her classes’ end of the year test performance went up dramatically. She replicated the results the next year. She also became her state’s teacher of the year.

Readers, have I got your attention yet?

By next week I’ll have my own copy of Tim’s latest book (found it on Amazon Prime) and a chance to really look and think about both the ideas he presented Wednesday night in St Louis and about the content of his new book. (UPDATE Dec. 2019: The 1st and 2nd-grade teams and I are now using this book in this year’s project) A big thanks to Scholastic for sponsoring him. Just in the brief chance, I had to look at the book he brought with him and also looking at the online previews of the book I have become convinced that this book is destined to become the go-to handbook for teachers who want to do serious teaching around the concept of fluency.  It’s packed full of practical lessons and a defense for using such lessons that can only be mounted by someone with Tim’s knowledge of fluency. It is a blueprint on how to use the art (and science) of reading to help kids become more fluent readers. For me, this means readers who read with prosody. It doesn’t mean readers who aspire to read fast, faster, fastest. Instead, it means readers who aspire to read with varied speeds, speeds appropriate to the text content and meaning, speeds that demonstrate an understanding of text meaning. In short, readers who read like storytellers.  I predict the use of Tim’s rubric, and his lessons will go a long way toward helping to make that happen.


(NOTE TO READERS: Please read the previous single word paragraph in a voice drawn out slowly, emphasis on the first syllable and with real enthusiasm! 😊 Writer’s workshop note I learned the writer’s trick of single-word paragraphs for the purpose of emphasis from my writing workshop teachers many years ago. At this juncture, I just tried to meld that particular piece of writing craft with the concept of reading with prosody. I hope all that just had the desired effect).

So…, there will be more to come on this topic over the next few Fridays.  For right now, I’m inviting my readers to wrap their heads around the idea that reading is both an art and science.  Some of you have had this idea for a long time. For some, it may be brand new. Please understand that treating the teaching of reading as art can be justified.  Treating it as an art can pay off in so many ways. According to Rasinski, one of those ways happens to include the possibility of better test scores. But it also includes so much more. I think Rasinski’s newest book will help you as a teacher to get into the art of teaching reading (and writing) while still using the science of reading (and writing). Some of the things he said in St. Louis made me feel I was back in a writer’s workshop seminar.  You’ll see what I mean next week. Anyway, we REALLY need to talk more about all this over the next few weeks. As always, both push back, and praise are welcome. Have a good week!


Happy Reading and Writing


Dr. Sam Bommarito (A.K.A. Dr. B., newly minted “art” teacher & wanna-be storyteller  who is learning how to read with a storyteller’s voice)

Here’s a little more information about Tim and his background:


Have a look at the Missouri Reader: You’ll be happy you did! by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Have a look at the Missouri Reader: You’ll be happy you did!

by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Today I’m going to talk to you about The Missouri Reader and some of the wonderful free literacy resources you will find in it. As you know, I am the Co-Editor along with Glenda Nugent. We’ve been around for over 40 years. It started out as a “paper journal,” now we publish digitally. We have three issues each year. We are peer-reviewed, and our editorial board has many highly qualified people (see the sidebar on the Table of Contents). We publish many well-known experts in the reading field.  But we also encourage teachers to publish, especially action research, book reviews, and app reviews. The last page of each issue explains how to submit an article for review. We are an official publication of the Missouri Literacy Association. Missouri Literacy Association is an ILA affiliate.

I want to call attention to two issues for you to explore. The first is the poetry issue. It is our most-read issue of all time. It contains TONS of innovative ideas on how to use poetry. It was the brainchild of David Harrison, a famous author/poet in Missouri. He approached Glenda Nugent (my Co-Editor)  and me about the idea of a special issue dedicated especially to poetry. We’re so glad he did. Here is the link to that issue. Feel free to share it with other interested educators.

Poetry Issue


The other issue I’d like for you to read is our current issue. It is dedicated to Dr. Linda Dorn. There are several touching tributes to her work in literacy, in the In Memoriam article.  As always there are also articles on a variety of literacy topics.  I’ve already had the elementary professional development director for one large district write to tell me she was planning to share a couple of articles with her staff because she thought they would help to improve their already great program. The issue hasn’t even been out for 24 hours.  I think the issue is worth a look. Here is the link.


Part of our way of distributing the  Missouri Reader is the use of what we call “word of cyberspace.” We ask our readers to share the links to the magazine with other readers. As a result, we are now read all around the world. So, if you like what you see in one or both of the issues, please share. THANKS!

Next week Dr. Sam is taking a break for Thanksgiving. The week after, I hope to start talking about some fluency work I’m doing with 1st and 2nd graders with the help of a group of exceptionally talented teachers. Dr. Tim Rasinski came to see us last week because we are doing work based on his ideas on fluency. Tune in after Thanksgiving to hear all about it. Until then:

Happy Reading and Writing

Dr. Sam Bommarito (Co-Editor of an authentic teacher’s journal)

Copyright 2019 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely the view of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

P.S. If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following the blog to make sure you won’t miss it.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.

The Reading Wars: Let’s talk not bicker. By Dr. Sam Bommarito

The Reading Wars: Let’s talk not bicker.

By Dr. Sam Bommarito

Recently an attempt was made to challenge my credibility. Here is a screen capture, so there is no question about what was said:


Here some facts:

From my Word Press Account:



I currently have 2,329 followers on Twitter. On WordPress when I compare 2018 when I started blogging to 2019 (which isn’t complete yet), my number of views and number of visitors has more than tripled. Over 40,000 views this year so far. Sorry, I think most folks would characterize this as a large and growing following, I certainly do. Guess that demonstrates very clearly that Karen and I tend to look at data very differently.  We’ll let readers decide who is more accurate in their interpretation of the preceding data. Let’s now explore the views Karen and I have.

She is firm in her position. I have been flexible in mine, modifying as I learn new things from “the other side.” Shanahan has had a major influence on my views. I told him that I don’t always agree with him, but I always learn from him.  On the question of whether or not I understand Karen’s views-  I don’t think disagreeing with her views is the same thing as not understanding them. I do agree with Karen that she really doesn’t understand what I have been saying.

Throughout the rest of the piece, I will be referring to “the video”. Here is what I am referring to:


The session was led by two of the top experts in the literacy field today, Nell Duke and P.D. Pearson. I strongly feel that what they and the panel had to say provide important information for all to consider before making major decisions about the future course literacy should take.

Below is a link to register. Registration is free to all. Once you register you can stream the video any time.


Let’s do now look at a sample of some of her points and some of my counterpoints for you to consider.

  1. She maintains constructivist practices (she calls it balanced literacy) don’t work. She bases that on the current scene in the teaching of reading. I’ve pointed out numerous times that the current literacy scene includes districts doing almost nothing, districts carrying out constructivist practices poorly (without fidelity), districts carrying them out with fidelity, districts using Science of Reading (hereafter SOR) poorly, Districts carrying out SOR with fidelity, etc.. You can’t make broad pronouncements about things from that kind of general sample. The only way to tell what’s working is to:


Multiple times, I’ve asked for such a sample giving DISTRICT level data, using full comprehension tests to demonstrate constructivist practices aren’t working. She’s provided lots and lots of data, none of which meet those criteria. I want to focus on the issue of how various programs play out when DISTRICTS actually implement them.  Not sure how to be any clearer than that on what I’m asking. It’s based on one of the fundamental tenets of scientific research.  Base your conclusions on scientific samples of places using what you are studying WITH FIDELITY.  I’m simply asking to include some science in the Science of Reading.

  1. She called for eliminating reading instruction and replacing it with content-area instruction. My counterproposal is to include substantial content area material in the reading instruction time. You can then teach students to apply the reading strategies needed to unpack the information from those texts. BTW I think it will take more than ten strategy lessons to do that (see my remarks below on Willingham’s work).
  2. She was critical of the amount of time being spent on teaching reading strategies. On this, we have a partial agreement. Many teachers spend most/all of their strategy instruction on teaching what the strategy is and not enough on applying the strategy. I agree with the position of Nell Duke (see the video). She indicates that there is a large body of research in favor of carrying out strategy instruction using gradual release, i.e. gives the student lots of opportunities to apply the strategy. I suggest you stop the instruction when you see the student can apply the strategy independently.  Overall Duke’s position is that a substantial amount of time is needed in strategy instruction using the gradual release model. For a more complete view of her work and P.D. Pearson’s look at this book chapter Based on Willingham’s work the other side calls for a substantially smaller amount of time for strategy instruction.
  3. Let’s explore the issue of Willingham’s research indicating the importance of building vocabulary knowledge and background. I have no argument with including substantial time on vocabulary and background. Vocabulary and background are important. That’s been a foundational point in all the reading courses I’ve taught over the years.

Some of the folks from the other side seem to be under the impression that Willingham’s work means after you spend a small number of sessions on strategies (10 or so), you’re done with strategies, and then you can spend the bulk of instructional time with building comprehension and vocabulary. That is counter to Duke’s findings. Among other things it does not include gradual release. I find stopping when the strategy is mastered a more precise cut off than the cut off of 10.  A careful examination of what Willingham actually demonstrated indicates “10 and out” is not what his research shows either. He actually calls for several cycles of strategy instruction. So it’s ten, then ten again later, etc. Also, take a careful look at the late Grant Wiggin’s criticisms of Willingham’s work before taking his work at face value.

I’m not saying to forget about building background and vocabulary. Building background and vocabulary is critical. I’m just saying doing so does not eliminate the need for a SUBSTANTIAL direct instruction on comprehension strategies using the gradual release model.

  1. Finally, there is the issue of whether or not implementing the cluster of practices the other side advocates (I’ll let their leadership tell you what those are) really helps. Specifically, will it help every student (almost every student) every time? When I’ve asked folks for evidence to that effect, they usually say there is not a program that helps almost every single child almost every single time. I agree.  My next point is based on that. It is critical:

If it doesn’t work for every kid every time, then what are you doing for the kids for whom it doesn’t work?

For instance, what are you doing for word callers (see Cartwright’s book)?  Why aren’t you using analytic phonics?  Shanahan, the NRP, and numerous studies indicate that both systematic analytic phonics and synthetic phonics work. When I raise that point, I normally get tons of questions indicating some SoR proponents don’t believe systematic phonics exist. If that’s the case where did the NRP studies that Shanahan cites come from? Sorry, systematic analytic phonics exists. Check out the studies to see what it looks like.  Finally, how long is long enough for decodable books? Shanahan reports some SoR folks calling for two years or more. He finds that call ridiculous. I concur.  Just today he had this to say about decodables “…—This is fascinating. You are correct that each time a youngster guesses a word from context instead of looking at the combination of letters in the word, he/she is missing an opportunity to learn the statistical properties of the orthographic system. However, it makes no sense to try to solve that problem by altering the statistical properties of the language (which, of course, is what we do when we try to limit children’s access to text to “decodable” text). If we want kids to learn from the statistical properties of English, it makes little sense to expose them to a form of English that has little correspondence to the statistical properties of English. I think that is why no one has found a clear learning advantage from text decodability alone.”  My question- what is a good range for how long to use decodables and should they be used exclusively in that initial Instruction?

Another issue is what is a reasonable amount of time to spend on phonics instruction.  In the video, P.D. Pearson makes the point that the time being used for phonics instruction exceeds the time research indicates is needed. He also notes that the research finding that phonics instruction does not help older readers has been ignored.

I don’t want to come off as saying there aren’t already points of agreement. I agree with Shanahan and folks from the other side that MUCH more phonics instruction time is needed (some teachers are saying they do it and then don’t).  Preservice teacher education courses need to include a strong phonics component.  Practicing teachers need more PD, especially those who earned their degrees when teaching phonics was viewed as unnecessary.  However, given the research around analytic and synthetic phonics (and other forms of phonics), training teachers in just one form of phonics is unacceptable. The contention being made by some SoR proponents, that analytic phonics is a weak sister form of phonics, is simply not supported by the research.

Perhaps I really am at an impasse with some folks on the other side. My perception is they are not taking the challenges to their position seriously.  They seem to be taking a “my way or the highway stand”, forcing their position on everyone, even those who have reasonable questions about implementing what they propose, questions that haven’t been answered yet.  Before making the decision that they are completely right, please do view the live stream of the ILA session. Lots of relevant information there.  Then go to the library of a university with a reading program and look up the current copy of the Handbook of Reading. Read what it says about phonics and comprehension.

In sum, before deciding, look at ALL the research first.

In the meantime, I have found several folks from the SoR side who are willing to dialogue and not bicker. For the moment that is where I will focus my attention. It is my sincere hope that the dialogue will eventually eliminate the need for the term “the other side”.

In the long run, I really do hope to spark a #readingevolution.

For that to happen both sides have first to admit their positions have limitations.

Once all sides are willing to do that, bickering can be replaced with dialogue. It’s been almost two years since I made this post. Please do read it one last time and see whether or not you’d like to be a part of a reading evolution #readingevolution1. Perhaps there actually will come a day when there aren’t sides anymore.  Dare to dream.


Thanks for listening. Lot’s to unpack here!

Dr. Sam Bommarito

Copyright 2019 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely the view of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

P.S. If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following the blog to make sure you won’t miss it.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.