My take on Dr. Paul Thomas’s idea that the decline in NAEP reading scores shows it is time for a new story by Dr. Sam Bommarito

The Science of Reading star has been rising for quite some time. See this chart from the Jan. 21^st edition of Education Week LINK.

A quick glance at the chart shows that since 2019, sixteen states have mandated SOR practices. By 2021, another 14 states joined, bringing the number of states with three to five-year commitments to SOR practices up to 30. Given the promises made by SOR proponents and the number of districts adopting SOR practices in the past few years, one would expect substantial gains in reading scores nationally. Instead, NAEP scores have DROPPED to below pre-pandemic levels. Remember that those scores provide a long-term longitudinal look at national reading scores. Paul Thomas, a major critic of SOR, has written some posts on this very topic. Let’s look at some highlights from his recent posts.

LINK

Paul’s post provides a lot of well-researched information. This post is a must-read, and I suggest that my readers take the time to read the full post. I want to call attention to several important points he makes.

• “reading achievement on NAEP was flat during the balanced literacy era and now has dropped steadily during the SOR era”

• “NAEP “basic” is approximately grade level (although even that claim is problematic since no standard exists in the US for “proficient” or “grade level”), and “proficient” on NAEP is high:”

This point is especially important in light of a point he made in an earlier post LINK.

“As I have noted, NAEP achievement levels are confusing since “proficient” is well above grade level and “basic” tends to correlate with most state metrics for “proficient” (see here for a full explanation and state/NAEP correlations).”

MY TAKE- The bottom line is that the claim often made in the media that about 2/3 of our students are reading below grade level is completely inaccurate and greatly exaggerates the actual problem.  Paul labels this as one of the “Big Lies” being told by SOR advocates.

• But a key element of the SOR story is often overlooked: “One of the excuses educators have long offered to explain America’s poor reading performance is poverty.”
• “In other words, the SOR story argues that the US has a reading crisis that is entirely the result of in-school policies and practices, that SOR-based reading instruction guarantees 95%+ of students will achieve reading proficiency.”

MY TAKE- The relationship between poverty and low reading achievement is well established. Yet SOR advocates downplay/ignore the impact of poverty on reading achievement. In addition, the claim that SOR-based instruction guarantees 95% of students will achieve reading achievement simply is not borne out by the longitudinal NAEP data In addition, England’s experience with synthetic phonics for over a decade has demonstrated that synthetic phonics is not the cure-all some make it out to be LINK.

I agree with Paul that it is time for a new story. It is time for the WHOLE STORY. It is time to look at ALL the research, not just that research that supports one side or the other’s point of view. My own opinion is that if we stay the course with the brand of SOR currently being mandated, the result will be yet another very expensive swing of the pendulum LINK.

I’ll say it again- it is time to stop taking sides. It is time to end the “Big Lies”. It is time to talk about what we can all agree on so we can find a path to improving the literacy performance of all students (see my blog last week, LINK). Dare to dream!

Happy Reading and Writing,

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

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

PS If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following it to ensure you won’t miss future posts.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.

Seeking Common Ground Using Common Sense, my recent exchanges with Dr. Claude Goldenberg.

For the past 5 years, I’ve promoted the position that we should look at ALL the research in the “Great Debate”  about reading. I’ve done interviews with folks promoting different ideas and practices. I’ve been critical of folks from either side who “put blinders on”. They sometimes leave out research and sometimes define their opponents in a way that effectively creates strawmen. Here is one important conclusion I’ve reached. We need to USE ALL THE RESEARCH and draw on practices from all sides:

Figure 1

For more details on this position, please visit my previous blog post LINK.

A while back, I suggested that instead of taking sides and looking at things as a dichotomy, we should start conversations about things most of us can agree on. To that end, I recently had several exchanges with Claude Goldenberg on his substack Ending the Reading Wars Now LINK. Thanks to Dr. Goldenberg for taking the time to seek some areas of common ground (some areas of agreement).

This is the message I got back from Dr. Goldenberg:

I don’t mean to get overly optimistic (I’ve been there before). Still, one string of comments initiated by Sam Bommarito (https://doctorsam7.blog/) yielded the following, which many readers might not have seen unless they read the string of comments/discussion on the last post, “Can we talk?”

If this needs context to make sense, please see the comments there for other tidbits.

Sam’s comments are in quotes:

1. “context needs to be used in word recognition. Current laws are removing it entirely. That is a HUGE mistake.” Completely agree. (Tim does, too, btw).
2. “Frankly, the words cue/cueing have become divisive.” Agree again. 100%, or more, if it’s possible to agree more than 100%. That’s the point of the DEADLY WORDS posts I’ve been working on.
3. “When in-servicing teachers, I urge them to encourage students to use the graphophonemic information first and then cross-check it against context & syntax.” Once again, we are in agreement…
4. …. whether we call it “a “take off” point” or a “self-extending system” is less important than providing the sort of instruction that will hasten students’ getting there. What you provide in your in-services sounds like it will help accomplish that.

Common Ground

I find his statement #1 around the use of context particularly hopeful. He says that he and Shanahan feel that the current laws removing the use of context from word recognition are a bad idea. I’d love to hear more from him on that point (and I’m posting this blog entry on his site to see what he meant by that).

Rather than focusing on claims and counterclaims around “The Three Cueing System” (BTW, it is NOT a system of instruction), I think his point #2 establishes the need to stop using the term cue and to start discussing what information readers use with decoding. Most importantly, what information do readers use when the graph phonemic information fails to produce a meaningful word? That can sometimes be because the word is not spelled the way it sounds (irregular word). It can sometimes be because it is not in the reader’s current listening vocabulary. I’d especially like to clarify his views about this in light of the concept of set for variability.

Point 3 is one on which I hope teachers from many points of view can agree. Students should use grapho phonemic information first. Other information can be used to confirm the grapho phonemic information or, in the case of irregular words, can be used to start a problem-solving process.

Ground for Future Discussion

Point 4  indicates that establishing a “take-off point” or a “self-extending system” is less important than establishing practices that get us there. This misses a very important point. Folks like Mesmer indicate that using decodables is a temporary practice and should end fairly early in the reading process. Shanahan has indicated that those advocating using decodables for years and years and years based on “research” are simply making that stuff up. Ultimately, I think the time comes to take off the training wheels and start riding the bike on your own. We don’t want to under-scaffold or over-scaffold (see figure 1 at the start of this blog). I’ll end with the thought that I would like to continue the discussion with Dr. Goldenberg about the best ways to ensure we promote the creation of engaged readers. I think that is best done by allowing teachers to use both the art and science of reading to achieve that end.

I’m looking forward to the future discussions.

Happy Reading and Writing,

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

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

PS If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following it to ensure you won’t miss future posts.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.

Lisa Stringfellow, Middle School Author/Teacher ©2025- An Interview by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Lisa Stringfellow is a middle-school teacher. She is also the author of two books for middle school children. As her biography indicates, she writes for her twelve-year-old self, the kid waiting to be the brown-skinned hero of an adventure, off saving the world. I had the pleasure of interviewing her about her upcoming appearances at the Write To Learn  Conference in Columbia, Missouri. She’ll be conducting three different workshops at the conference. We’ll talk more about that conference in a minute. Let’s first look at Lisa’s biography and what she had to say in her interview.

BIOGRAPHY

Here are the time-stamped talking points for the interview (so you can go to the sections that interest you the most first)

Here is a link to the U-Tube Interview:

Lisa’s Website LINK:

LINKS TO ORDER KINGDOM OF DUST- LINK                 

Final Thoughts

This is what Willy Wood (who is in charge of the Write to Learn Conference), had to say about this interview:

“It’s a quick YouTube video (13 minutes), so it won’t take much of your time. And if you’re like me, you’ll be captivated by how engaging (and knowledgeable) Lisa is.

After watching the interview, I’m confident you’ll want to sign up for as many of Lisa’s sessions as possible!”

I was definitely impressed by Lisa. It is amazing that in addition to being a full-time middle school teacher, she finds the time to write books and is willing to share those books with classrooms in person and through virtual visits. See her website for details. Her workshop topics for this conference will include:

 “Read Like a Writer: Engaging Readers and Writers Through Verse Novels”

“Using Social Justice-Themed Literature to Promote Student Advocacy”

 “Teachers as Writers: Creating a Classroom Writing Community”

So…, Lisa has many choices to pick from, and all are “hot topics.”  You can go to all three of the sessions if you want. A reminder that Lisa is not the only one presenting at Write To Learn– there are Over 50 practical, research-based breakout sessions, exhibits, and special events. There will also be contests and door prizes. I will be presenting at this conference as well. I hope to see many of you there!

Happy Reading and Writing,

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

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

PS If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following it to ensure you won’t miss future posts.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.

For more information about Write To Learn, use this LINK:

Thanks to those who helped promote the last ILEC webinar last.  We had one of our largest number of registrants at 280.  Our next one is on the 21st. Hope to see you there.

Dr. Sam Bommarito, ILEC team

• Tuesday, January 21, 2025, at 7:00 PM, EST, 6:00 PM CST, 4:00 PM EST.

“Pushing Back Against Science of Reading Mandates: The California Story.”

Panel discussion by Dr. Barbara Flores, Dr. Edgar Lampkin, Dr. Jill Kerper Mora, and Dr. Esteban Díaz

We are limited to 500 participants. CEU certificates from Minnesota State University are available. Register in advance for this free webinar:

https://minnstate.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_bjKSXoVUTBSwGE_M2DnPdw

Decodables, leveled text and trade books: Common sense ways to use all of them by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Recently, there was an extended discussion on a Facebook page. It seems that a teacher was concerned because her district’s curriculum department decided to promote decodables as the exclusive reading material for students. Is this a good idea? My short answer to this is no, it is not LINK. Let’s look at the issue of what kind of books to use in instruction and when to use them.

We’ll start with a quick overview of a blog entry by Heidi Mesmer

LINK

 Here are three important points she makes in this blog:

There is much more to the Meismer article than just these three points. The article explains the research behind decodables and gives several teaching tips on best using them. What now follows is my analysis of how to handle the question of when to use decodables and the other books available for use in instructional programs.

Here are three important things to consider when dealing with the selection of texts

1. Gradual Release of Responsibility
2. Set for variability
3. Developing a self-extending system of word-solving skills

Gradual Release of Responsibility. When  I train teachers,  I tell them that a good question to ask at the start of any lesson is, “What work do you want to leave for the student and why?” If the goal of your lesson is to develop word-solving skills, then you want text rich in that feature and text that fits their current word-solving abilities. I agree with Dr. Meiser that this is especially important early in the reading program, in those 2-3 months when the students focus on how to break the code. Early versions of decodable text had major content issues. They often lacked meaning and used unusual syntax. Many publishers have decodable text written in a way that overcomes these limitations. Meisner has an extensive collection of such books.  Pioneer Valley Books does as well. I invite my readers to comment on other good sources of decodables, especially those that are appropriate for very-beginning readers. BTW, experts like Shanahan warn against the exclusive use of decodable text LINK.

Set for Variability. After the first few months of instruction,  students need to encounter SOME text that challenges their decoding skills. In a way, decodable texts are like training wheels, and if one is to learn to ride a bike, the time comes when the training wheels need to come off. One must learn what to do with words that include unfamiliar sound/symbol relations.

Self-extending system  Recently, Seidenberg talked about helping students achieve escape velocity. He calls for having an explicit direct phonics program early on but says the time comes when the child reaches escape velocity and needs to learn through implicit learning. In my post about this, I argue that this sounds very much like the self-extending system first described by Clay LINK. This is important evidence that there is common ground in this latest version of the reading wars. It is also a good reason why the use of decodable text should be a temporary, not a permanent, feature of reading programs.

What does this suggest for when and how to select books for use in reading instruction?

When should we be using decodables- my answer is when the lesson needs to focus mainly on decoding and teaching decoding skills. 

When should we use leveled text and “harder” versions of decodable texts? Those would be texts that  the students can decode themselves but that have enough meaning for teachers to teach particular comprehension skills. An important point here is that I  view leveled text as fitting on Mesimer’s continuum of decodability. In an interview I conducted with Susan Vincent, she gave some great ideas on the research around different kinds of text and the topic of text selection for teaching lessons. LINK. 

Teaching is both art and science. The science of reading helps us to determine what kind of text to use and when to use them. The art of teaching involves teachers skillfully employing their knowledge of the text to help students develop the various decoding and comprehension skills they need. Being able to read trade books is one of the end goals of this. For me, that is the common sense way to approach the issue of decodables, leveled text and trade books.

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

PS If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following it to ensure you won’t miss future posts.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.

Announcement:

Thanks to those who helped promote the ILEC webinar last Tuesday.  We had one of our largest number of registrants at 280.  Our next one is on the 21st. Hope to see you there.

Dr. Sam Bommarito, ILEC team

• Tuesday, January 21, 2025, at 7:00 PM, EST, 6:00 PM CST, 4:00 PM EST.

“Pushing Back Against Science of Reading Mandates: The California Story.”

Panel discussion by Dr. Barbara Flores, Dr. Edgar Lampkin, Dr. Jill Kerper Mora, and Dr. Esteban Díaz

We are limited to 500 participants. CEU certificates from Minnesota State University are available. Register in advance for this free webinar:

https://minnstate.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_bjKSXoVUTBSwGE_M2DnPdw

The Multiverse of the Science of Reading- my thoughts about this important article from NEA & Rachel Gabriel’s Webinar about speculative policy making- a blog entry by Dr. Sam Bommarito

LINK to the article by Grace Hagerman, Published: October 4, 2024

I’m glad so many of my readers attended the webinar by Rachel Gabriel this week. She brought up several important insights about the current Science of Reading movement. I expect I’ll be unpacking those ideas over the next few weeks. One of the articles she suggested we review was this one. Here are the website’s key takeaways from the article.

Let’s especially consider takeaway number three, that the kind of scripted curriculum used in SOR reduces diversity in texts and deprofessionalizes teaching. Here is what P.L. Thomas had to say on that point:

My thoughts and analysis:

Dr. Sam- if something isn’t working, doesn’t it make perfect sense to replace it with something that does? Hmmm.  Good point. The problem is that it is unclear whether everything really needs replacing and whether the replacements being offered are really going to work any better than what we have now.   

There has been major pushback regarding some of the premises of the SOR movement. Most notable is a book by Tierney and Pearson entitled Fact Checking the Science of Reading.  The book is freely available on the Literacy Research Commons website LINK.

The book outlines 10 major well-researched pushbacks about SOR. The executive summary gives an excellent rendition of the book’s major points. A reading of these materials leads me to believe that the claims that it is all “settled science” are, at best, premature. I am aware that there have been criticisms of what Pearson said LINK. I’ll leave it to my readers to judge how much of what is being said is an attempt to discount and discredit alternate points of view and how much of what is said actually derives from fundamentally different views of what constitutes the reading process. Folks should examine ALL the evidence before deciding on this “Great Debate.” I expressed my own point of view that programs and methods that overemphasize decoding at the expense of meaning-making or overemphasize meaning-making at the expense of decoding, have been the source of the pendulum swings we have seen for several decades in the reading world.  We’ve yet to learn that what works with one child doesn’t necessarily work for another. LINK

.

Another point I would like to make is that there is plenty of evidence to indicate that many of the practices associated with what has been dubbed Balanced Literacy have indeed been successful. I’ve written several times around the point that backs up the thought that BL has a research base and that it has been successful with many (not all!) students in many (not all) settings. For instance, review what folks like Billy Molasso had to say on that point LINK. Yet, if you read the current dialogue on social media, the case is being made that Balanced Literacy and its associated practices are total failures. BL is the reason our reading scores are so poor. So, when we look at long-term reading scores, we should see a dip when BL literacy was introduced. However, longitudinal research indicates that reading scores have been flat for an extended period; see the figure below. LINK

The term balanced literacy first began to be used in 1996. It was based on the work of Michael Pressley LINK. If BL is the cause of all the low reading scores, why don’t we see a drop in scores over the period covered? Folks like Dr. P.L. Thomas and Dr. Andy Johnson have written extensively about what they have dubbed the “phony reading crisis.” There’s a lot to unpack about what they have to say. My point here is not that we should be happy with the tepid results or that we shouldn’t be making changes. As a centrist, I believe we should change ineffective practices, whether they have their roots in the BL or the SOR camps. I’ll take it a step further and say that looking at things from an “us vs. them” perspective has kept the pendulum of instruction swinging for the entire four decades of my teaching career.

In her recent webinar that inspired this blog, Rachel Gabrial repeatedly made points that for me demonstrate that it is not at all settled science. She soundly criticizes the “I’m One Click Away from Happiness” posts regularly appearing on social media. Buy my SOR stuff, and all your problems will be solved. Needless to say, there is no substantiating evidence that the “stuff” produces such magical results. In fairness, I must note that this is exactly what happened to Balanced Literacy back in the day. Folks wanted to label their stuff as Balanced Literacy because that was the hot item of that time. Many things were called BL even when they weren’t. So, buyers need to beware. Sticking a SOR label on a material does not make it SOR. Too often, in many social media discussions, one side or the other is using strawman versions of the other, based on programs/practices that don’t fit the label they are given or worse yet, present purposeful misrepresentations about the position. That adds confusion to an already confused state of affairs.

Let’s turn now to what Dr. Gabrial said in her webinar, Science-Policy Gap: Impacts and Possibilities of Speculative Policy Making. She questioned whether there are multiple high-quality curriculums and whether there is a common definition for the quality of those curriculums. Use this LINK to the YouTube version of her presentation. Especially review what she has to say at 27:00 on the recording. I think you’ll find she provides compelling evidence to justify the conclusion that she, David Pearson, and others have reached. That is the conclusion that we are currently engaged in speculative policy making. Speculative meaning that we hope for success but can’t be sure of that success. I would characterize districts’ current curriculum/curriculum choices being presented in many states as “not ready for prime time.” Yet, such curricula are being mandated by many state legislatures. Please take the time to listen to the full presentation and especially notice the details of how those curriculums are evaluated are dependent on instruments that stress different things (28:59). Notice that she maintains that the curriculum renaissance has faltered (46:34). Dr. Gabriel has already left us a lot to unpack and has indicated she has articles in progress that will explore these concerns ever further.

As a centrist, I advocate for using ideas from all sides, finding common ground using common sense, and taking a nuanced view of the reading process. By doing that, I hope that some sense can be made of the multiverse of reading instruction. I urge policymakers at all levels to carefully examine ALL the research. They should make decisions about whether the research is well enough developed to make the kind of mandates they are making. Perhaps by doing that, we can finally cut through the Gordian knot of how to best teach reading.

So, until next week, Happy Reading and Writing.

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

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

PS If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following it to ensure you won’t miss future posts.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.

Announcement:

Thanks to those who helped promote the ILEC webinar last Tuesday.  We had one of our largest number of registrants at 280.  Our next one is on the 21st. Hope to see you there.

Dr. Sam Bommarito, ILEC team

• Tuesday, January 21, 2025, at 7:00 PM, EST, 6:00 PM CST, 4:00 PM EST.

“Pushing Back Against Science of Reading Mandates: The California Story.”

Panel discussion by Dr. Barbara Flores, Dr. Edgar Lampkin, Dr. Jill Kerper Mora, and Dr. Esteban Díaz

We are limited to 500 participants. CEU certificates from Minnesota State University are available. Register in advance for this free webinar:

https://minnstate.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_bjKSXoVUTBSwGE_M2DnPdw

REMINDER- International Literacy Educators Coalition

FREE Webinar TONIGHT!

Tuesday, January 7, 2025, at 6:00 PM CST

Dr. Rachael Gabriel presents

The Science-Policy Gap: Impacts and Possibilities of Speculative Policy-Making

We are limited to 500 participants.

CEU certificates from Minnesota State University are available. Register in advance for this free webinar:

https://minnstate.zoom.us/…/WN_fOQKhjqnSnueSdU0M6qINQ

I have readers from all around the world and over 100 different countries. They include folks of many different backgrounds and religions. I  hope everyone has a wonderful Holiday Season. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Heri za Kwanzaa, and Happy New Year (just to name a few). As we enter the New Year, let us remember that the key to a successful education is to fit programs to the needs of the kids (not the other way around!).  Let’s use ALL the research in order to do just that!

Happy Reading and Writing,

Dr. Sam

The guy in the middle taking flak from all sides